Flight Safety Information August 17, 2020 - No. 166 In This Issue Incident: Iceland B752 near Keflavik on Aug 16th 2020, engine shut down in flight Incident: Rossiya B744 at St. Petersburg on Aug 15th 2020, could not retract landing gear Incident: Piedmont E145 at Charlotte on Aug 14th 2020, fumes on board Incident: Jetblue A320 at Fort Lauderdale on Aug 13th 2020, could not retract landing gear Incident: SAS B738 near Trondheim on Aug 14th 2020, unruly fans Incident: Azul A21N at Macapa on Aug 12th 2020, burst tyre on landing Air India Express Plane Crash: Air Safety Experts Think Investigation Is A Cover-up Exercise $23 million lawsuit filed against FAA in stunt plane crash that killed New Orleans TV news anchor To land or to divert? How pilots decide the safest option New NTSB report on fatal air ambulance crash shows no mechanical failure or malfunction El Al Israel Airlines chairman steps down for medical reasons Boeing 727 offering weightless experience comes to Long Beach Airport Icarus Launches Optionally-Piloted Multi-Role Aircraft Boom ready to roll out its first jet en route to carbon neutral supersonic travel Rolls-Royce closing Virginia jet parts plant where 280 work Lufthansa cabin crew union members back cost cut deal United is ripping seats out of its regional jets and it's a bad sign for pilots and passengers A mania for Mars SCSI Online Investigation and Safety Courses The USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Will Offer Online and In-Person Classes This Fall Trinity College Dublin and EASA Air Ops Community Survey on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on aviation workers Swinburne University Capstone Research Projects 2020 - Airline pax preferences Study Swinburne University Capstone Research Projects 2020 - UAM/RCO Study SURVEY:...GA PILOTS AND PIREPs. Graduate Research Survey (1) Incident: Iceland B752 near Keflavik on Aug 16th 2020, engine shut down in flight An Iceland Air Boeing 757-200, registration TF-ISD performing flight FI-510 from Keflavik (Iceland) to Hamburg (Germany) with 150 people on board, had just levelled off at cruise FL310 about 120nm east of Keflavik when the crew received an engine (RB211) fault indication, shut the engine down, drifted down to FL210 and returned to Keflavik for a safe landing on runway 10 about 55 minutes after departure. The airline reported a technical problem prompted the return to Keflavik. A replacement Boeing 757-200 registration TF-ISY reached Hamburg with a delay of about 3 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground 12 hours after landing back. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db5d23c&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Rossiya B744 at St. Petersburg on Aug 15th 2020, could not retract landing gear A Rossiya Boeing 747-400, registration EI-XLF performing flight FV-5663 from St. Petersburg (Russia) to Antalya (Turkey) with 408 passengers and 13 crew, was climbing out of Pulkovo Airport's runway 28L when the crew could not retract the landing gear. The aircraft stopped the climb at FL090 and returned to St. Petersburg for a safe landing on runway 28L about 25 minutes after departure. A replacement Boeing 747-400 registration EI-XLC reached Antalya with a delay of about 8 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground about 8 hours after landing back. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db50e7b&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Piedmont E145 at Charlotte on Aug 14th 2020, fumes on board A Piedmont Embraer ERJ-145 on behalf of American Airlines, registration N634AE performing flight AA-4764 from Charlotte,NC to Lexington,KY (USA), was climbing out of Charlotte when the crew declared emergency reporting fumes on board further explaining there was a smell on board, that was not normal. The aircraft stopped the climb at about 9000 feet and returned to Charlotte for a safe landing on runway 18C about 15 minutes after departure. A replacement ERJ-145 registration N645AE reached Lexington with a delay of about 3 hours. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 17.4 hours, then departed for positioning flight to Salisbury,MD (USA) but needed to declare emergency and return to Charlotte again landing safely about 7 minutes after departure. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL4764/history/20200814/2020Z/KCLT/KLEX http://avherald.com/h?article=4db509fd&opt=0 Back to Top Back to Top Incident: Jetblue A320 at Fort Lauderdale on Aug 13th 2020, could not retract landing gear A Jetblue Airbus A320-200, registration N709JB performing flight B6-1146 from Fort Lauderdale,FL to Richmond,VA (USA) with 77 passengers and 5 crew, was climbing out of Fort Lauderdale's runway 10R when the crew could not retract the landing gear. The aircraft levelled off at 12000 feet, burned off fuel and landed safely back on Fort Lauderdale's runway 10L about 60 minutes after departure. A replacement A320-200 registration N535JB reached Richmond with a delay of 2 hours. The occurrence aircraft returned to service about 17.5 hours after landing. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/JBU1146/history/20200814/0050Z/KFLL/KRIC http://avherald.com/h?article=4db5044e&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: SAS B738 near Trondheim on Aug 14th 2020, unruly fans A SAS Scandinavian Airlines Boeing 737-800, registration LN-RRT performing flight SK-4490 from Oslo to Longyearbyen (Norway), was enroute at FL370 about 30nm southeast of Trondheim (Norway) when the crew decided to turn around and divert to Oslo due to a number of error messages with several computer fans. The aircraft landed safely back in Oslo about 65 minutes after departure. A replacement Boeing 737-800 registration LN-RCN reached Svalbard Airport with a delay of 2:15 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground about 11 hours later. The airline reported, there was an error message with some fans for computers on board. The aircraft could have continued to Longyearbyen, however, the aircraft would have become stuck at Svalbard without a technician being available there. The aircraft thus returned to Gardermoen Airport for practical reasons. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db45af0&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Azul A21N at Macapa on Aug 12th 2020, burst tyre on landing An Azul Linhas Aereas Airbus A321-200N, registration PR-YJB performing flight AD-4374 from Belem,PA to Macapa,AP (Brazil) with 203 passengers and 7 crew, landed on Macapa's runway 08 but suffered a burst tyre during roll out. The aircraft returned to service about 26 hours later. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db450d6&opt=0 Back to Top Air India Express Plane Crash: Air Safety Experts Think Investigation Is A Cover-up Exercise Independent safety experts have raised serious reservations on the competence of the investigator-in-charge and integrity of some of the members of the probe team. A section of aviation experts believes that truth will never come out of the Kozhikode air accident of August 7, in which an Air India Express flight from Dubai carrying 191 people, touched down the runway almost in the middle, continued running to its end amid heavy rain and fell down in the valley. Eighteen people, including both pilots, were killed in the horrific accident. Five days after the accident, on August 13, Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) appointed Captain SS Chahar as an investigator-in-charge and four other aviation experts to assist him. Though the independent safety experts have raised serious reservations on the competence of the investigator-in-charge and integrity of some of the team members, Group Captain Aurobindo Handa, DG, AAIB has dismissed these concerns as baseless. Head of the probe team, Capt Chahar is a former examiner of Boeing 737 NG with erstwhile Jet Airways and his team members include - Ved Prakash (Operations Experts), Mukul Bhardwaj (Senior Aircraft Maintenance Engineer of B737), Group Capt YS Dahiya (Aviation Medicine Expert) and Jasbir Singh Larhga (Deputy Director. AAIB). "What is the experience of Capt SS Chahar as an investigator? He has never investigated a single air accident ever. Why has he been appointed as an investigator-in-charge? For me, this investigation is a cover-up exercise," SS Panesar, former Director, Flight Safety, Indian Airlines said. He added, "In my opinion, a judicial inquiry should be conducted with various aviation experts as part of the team." Interestingly, Capt Chahar's selection is in violation of AAIB's minimum eligibility criteria for being appointed as an Air Safety Investigator. AAIB's circular dated June 7, 2016, and available on the website of the Union Aviation Ministry, says that an air safety investigator should have minimum 25 years of experience in an air safety investigation, should have been a member of the transport aircraft accident investigations and should have undergone courses in aircraft accident investigations. Capt Chahar doesn't have any of these qualifications. However, DG, AAIB defends his decision and says that he chose Capt Chahar giving priority to his integrity over other things. "If you have a panel of Captains who are more qualified, experienced on Boeing 737 NG and non - controversial than Captain Chahar; pls do share their names with AAI," Capt Handa said. He added, "I reached out to Industry and sought the best names meeting qualification requirements. In the interest of passenger safety, I invested three to four days going through their biodatas and cross-checking their credentials before finally arriving at a composite team." In India, the B 737 type of aircraft, one that met with an accident at Kozhikode, is operated by Air India, Air India Express, Spicejet, and erstwhile Jet Airways. Other operators such as Indigo, Vistara, Air Asia and Go Air majorly operate Airbus 320. "Due to conflict of interest, AAIB's choice narrowed down to erstwhile Jet Airways," Group Capt Handa added. Questions of integrity and propriety surround other team members. For instance, a complaint is pending before the Civil Aviation Ministry against Jasbir Singh Larhga for allegedly tampering with the evidence while investigating Ghatkoper Air crash in 2018. Prabhat Kathuria, the husband of Marya Zuberi, the co-pilot who was killed in Ghatkoper Air crash, says, "Jasbir Singh Larhga is a tainted officer of AAIB as his report on the crash of VT- UPZ is a fudged report. How can he be given another assignment when his last report is sub-judice and has been objected by the victims as well as by experts? Why is AAIB is silent on those objections?" Kathuria added, "Many AAIB employees are on deputation from DGCA. How can a person be appointed a judge in his own case?" Kathuria's concern is seconded by aviation experts who feel that AAIB was constituted to investigate serious air accidents and aviation regulator DGCA can be accused in every such case. "It is a conflict of interest. If the regulator becomes the investigator, he will cover-up the regulatory flaws which are often primary reasons for major accidents," S Bhattacharya, former executive director, air navigation services. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-air-india-express-plane-crash-air-safety-experts-think-the-investigation-is-a-cover-up-exercise/358707 Back to Top $23 million lawsuit filed against FAA in stunt plane crash that killed New Orleans TV news anchor Nancy Parker The family of a New Orleans TV newscaster who was killed in a stunt plane crash a year ago has filed a $23 million lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration claiming the agency cleared the aircraft to fly despite allegedly knowing of its history of mechanical problems. The husband of Nancy Parker, a veteran anchor for Fox affiliate station WVUE-TV, filed the wrongful death lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New Orleans on behalf of himself and their three children. Parker, 53, and pilot Franklin J.P. Augustus, 69, were killed on Aug. 16, 2019, when the Aerotek Pitts S-2B aircraft, registered to Drug Fighter LLC, crashed shortly after taking off from New Orleans' Lakefront Airport. Parker and Augustus were the only two people aboard the biplane, which was scheduled to do skywriting stunts, officials said. Parker's husband, Glen Boyd, claims in the lawsuit that FAA workers were aware of airplane's "lengthy and well-known history of substandard maintenance, mechanical problems and scant flight time" when they cleared the flight for takeoff, according to the lawsuit that was filed on Aug. 6. Despite allegedly knowing of the maintenance and operational problems with the aircraft, "appropriate steps were not taken by FAA officials to ensure [the plane] was airworthy prior to clearing the aircraft for flight," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit did not specify the maintenance history of the aircraft or cite specific evidence proving the FAA was aware of any alleged history of mechanical problems. A placard had been placed in the aircraft in November 1983 warning that its smoke skywriting system should only be used on solo flights, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also states the plane had been modified with a 14-gallon auxiliary fuel tank under the passenger seat in February 1992. According to the lawsuit, Parker was not notified by the FAA or employees at the Lakefront Airport of the "foreseeable risk of harm to life and limb associated with flying in the aircraft" nor was she advised of the plane's history of mechanical problems prior to boarding the aircraft. On the day of the crash, the flight was delayed from taking off for several hours because of "mechanical problems with the aircraft's engine which negatively impacted engine performance and safety of flight," the lawsuit reads. Parker, who won multiple Emmy awards as a journalist, was filming a piece on the stunt plane with Augustus to honor the Tuskegee Airmen, a pioneering group of Black pilots who fought in World War II. Shortly after takeoff, Augustus radioed the Lakefront Airport's air-traffic control tower requesting immediate clearance to return to the airport but did not specify why, according to a preliminary investigative report from the National Transportation Safety Board. As Augustus attempted to return to the airport the plane made a sharp descent and crashed into an open field bursting into flames, according to the NTSB report. The cause of the crash remains under investigation by the NTSB. Shortly after the crash, the NTSB said the investigation could taken 12 to 24 months before a determination of probable cause for the crash is issued. FAA officials declined to comment on the lawsuit. An initial statement from the FAA said the stunt plane was manufactured in 1983 and "crashed under unknown circumstances" in an empty field about a half-mile south of the Lakefront Airport. "The NTSB will lead the investigation, and the FAA's investigation will become part of the NTSB's series of reports," the statement reads. The federal government has 60 days from the date the lawsuit filed to respond, according to court records. In a Facebook tribute to his wife shortly after her death, Boyd, who works as a spokesman for the Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, Sheriff's Office, described her as an "an amazing human," an "awesome mother" and "a master of her craft." https://www.yahoo.com/gma/23-million-lawsuit-filed-against-202300784.html Back to Top To land or to divert? How pilots decide the safest option Time is a precious commodity. It can either be a pilot's best friend or their worst enemy. Having the ability to differentiate between perceived time and the actual time is a key skill of a good pilot. So, when approaching an airport where the weather is less than ideal, pilots never want to be backed into a corner. Keeping as many options available is key to a safe outcome. How much fuel? Before every departure, the pilots meet up around 60 to 90 minutes beforehand to discuss the key points of the flight ahead. This includes looking at the route they plan to fly, the minimum required fuel and all relevant weather and airfield information for the destination and airfields along the way. The decisions made at this point will have a massive bearing on the outcome hours later when approaching the destination. There are a few things in aviation which are of no use to pilots. Runway behind us, altitude above us and fuel left in the truck. We only get one chance to load more fuel. Once airborne, we only have a finite amount of time available to us until we have to find a runway to land on. As a result, the decision on how much fuel to take is absolutely key. When the airline's flight planning department prepares a flight plan for the crew, it will also indicate the minimum amount of fuel needed for the flight. On most days when the weather is fine, this amount will normally suffice. However, when bad weather is forecast, we will take a much closer look at this figure. Holding and diverting The planned fuel will not only account for the flight to the destination, but it will also include two other important scenarios. First is for when there are delays on arrival. In this situation, we may have to enter a holding pattern and wait for our turn to land. This could either be dictated by ATC or by us if we decide that the conditions are not safe to land. Secondly, should we be unable to land at the destination, fuel is carried to divert to an alternate airport. Depending on geographic location and weather, this may be an airport a few miles away. Or, in the case of islands like Seychelles, the diversion airport could be several hours away. However, the last thing we want when needing to divert is to find that the weather at the diversion airfield is even worse than the destination. Before we know it, we only have enough fuel to reach airports where the weather is no good to land. As a result, we will look for an alternate airfield that is "wide-open" - meaning it has a weather forecast that would cause no issues for landing. If this airfield has to be hundreds of miles away, then so be it. We always want to have a surefire option up our sleeve should we need it. Increasing an already high workload due to a lack of fuel is not a corner we want to be backed into. The calm of the cruise During the cruise, we will constantly be monitoring the latest actual and forecast weather conditions at the destination and alternate. Long-haul flights can often be longer than 15 hours, and sometimes the forecasts can change significantly to what was available to us before departure. This could result in an improved situation but also a worsening situation. If the latter is the case, we may have to start coming up with alternative plans. If the weather at the planned alternate has changed, we may have to come up with another option. Approach brief As the flight nears the destination, it's time for the most important part of the approach, the brief. Before every landing, we will discuss among ourselves the major threats that could affect the safety of the aircraft. A major part of this brief is discussing the fuel and coming up with a plan should the weather not be good enough to start the approach. The flight plan issued to us by the airline's operations department not only tells us the fuel required for the flight but also how much fuel is required to divert to the alternate airport. In the example pictured below, a 787 Dreamliner is approaching London Heathrow where the weather is stormy, with Manchester as the alternate. From our flight plan, we know that we need 4.9 tons of fuel to leave Heathrow, fly to Manchester and land safely. We can then look at how much fuel we will have when arriving at the holding fix, the place where we enter a holding pattern to wait for our turn to land. London Heathrow has four of these holding patterns and they are given a three-letter identifier. Ockham (OCK) to the south, Biggin Hill (BIG) to the southeast, Lambourne (LAM) to the northeast and Bovingdon (BNN) to the north. As we knew the weather at Heathrow was going to be less than ideal, we loaded extra fuel so will be getting to OCK with 10 tons. When the time comes to make a decision, even if our judgment at the time is clouded by mental stress, the original plan acts as a safety backstop. Therefore, we know that we have 5.1 tons of fuel to fly around in circles waiting for the weather to improve before we have to decide if we will divert to Manchester or commit to landing at Heathrow. This can then be converted to how much time (around 1.10 hours) we have to hold - a much more useful metric to use in a dynamic ATC environment. Finally, we will then convert this into real-time on our watches. If we arrive at OCK at 8 a.m., if we want to divert to Manchester we must start this by 9:10 a.m. I would even set an alarm on my watch/phone to ensure that we don't miss this time. The whole reason for setting a timeline like this is so that we have agreed on a plan before things get really busy. We don't want to get backed into a corner to the point where we only have one option available to us. Later in the approach, when turbulence is shaking the aircraft and we may have had a go-around after being unable to land, the workload increases massively. We all know that when your workload increases, your spare mental capacity decreases and your ability to think clearly reduces. By having that piece of paper clipped to the control column, the plan created in the calm of the cruise which we knew provides a safe course of action, is always close to hand. When the time comes to make a decision, even if our judgment at the time is clouded by mental stress, the original plan acts as a safety backstop. Landing distance Another key factor of the approach brief is to determine how much runway will be needed to bring the aircraft to a safe stop in the actual weather conditions. This is known as the landing distance. Landing distance is defined as the horizontal distance traversed by the airplane from a point on the approach path at a selected height above the landing surface to the point on the landing surface at which the airplane comes to a complete stop. In plain English, this means the distance required from passing over the start of the runway at 50 feet to becoming stationary. This is also known as the calculated landing distance. However, as this is the minimum distance calculated for a textbook landing, most airlines use a safety factor of 5% to 15% on top of this. This ensures that should the landing not be perfect, for example, if the aircraft touches down a little deeper than planned, there is still sufficient runway remaining. This is known as the required landing distance. Therefore, in all cases, the landing distance available must be greater than the required landing distance. When it comes to calculating the landing distance, two variable factors can have a significant effect - tail winds and the runway surface. Wind For the same airspeed on touchdown, the speed over the ground will vary with the wind. Say the aircraft is flying at 100 knots - this is the speed of air over the wings in order to generate lift. If there is a 20-knot headwind, the speed of the aircraft over the ground is just 80 knots - the ideal situation as it results in a shorter required landing distance. This is why pilots prefer to land their aircraft into the wind. However, the reverse is the case with a tail wind. For an aircraft approaching at 100 knots with a 20-knot tail wind, the ground speed is 120 knots. This will massively increase the required landing distance, much more than most people think. As a result, pilots are acutely aware of the wind shifting during their approach. When calculating the required landing distance, 150% of any reported tail wind must be used, but only 50% of any headwind may be used. This ensures that a comfortable safety margin is maintained should the actual wind on touchdown differ from what was reported. Runway surface Once the wheels are on the ground, it's time for the wheel brakes to start to slow the aircraft. However, like in your car, the condition of the runway surface can have a huge effect on the effectiveness of the brakes. As you might imagine, the ideal conditions to land are on a dry runway. With maximum friction between the tires and the runway, the brakes are far more effective. However, a dry runway isn't always possible, particularly in tropical parts of the world. If the airfield weather states that it is raining, or it may rain during the time of landing, pilots will treat the runway as wet and calculate the performance accordingly. Rain is fairly common, so a wet runway is nothing abnormal. However, what happens when there has been torrential rain and the runway is slow to drain? As the aircraft approaches the airport, we obtain the latest airfield information, including the state of the runways. If there has been heavy rain, or there is snow or ice on the runway, the type and depth of contaminant should be notified to us. We then refer to the table below which is found in our operational manuals. Entering the table on the left, we find the row which relates to the conditions reported at the airfield, for example, greater than 1/8 of an inch (3 millimeters) depth of water. Moving to the right, this gives a runway condition code of 2 and, the most important part, a braking action of medium to poor. Calculating the distance Many older aircraft require the pilots to use complicated tables with multiple rows and columns to collate all the above factors and work out the required landing distance. At times of high workload and reduced personal performance from tiredness, just the smallest mistake can result in an erroneous calculation. To help combat this threat, the 787 Dreamliner has the onboard performance tool. Using this computer, we enter all the relevant information as seen in the image below. The OPT then calculates the distance required. Not only does it reduce potential errors but it also allows us to quickly carry out a new calculation if the reported wind or runway in use changes. With some very short runways around the world, a shift in the wind could make all the difference between landing safely and going off the end of the runway. Land or divert? Having all this information to hand only creates the pieces of the giant jigsaw puzzle going on in the flight deck. How the pilots put them together is key. The modern-day airline pilot is more of a problem solver and a manager than the old fashioned "stick-and-rudder" pilot of years gone by. As they fly the aircraft around the holding pattern, they are constantly thinking. Constantly coming up with new ideas and running new plans between themselves, trying to work out how best to use the pieces of the jigsaw. At the base of all decisions should be the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. However, when the workload increase and the mind and body are put under mental and physical stress, the ability to think clearly reduces. Our mind focuses in on certain aspects and blocks out others. Tunnel vision sets in. However, by creating an "escape plan" in the calm of the cruise, poor decisions made in the heat of the moment can be greatly reduced. If we don't like the look of the weather, or the state of the runway when we near the airport, we can enter a holding pattern. It's always safer to hold off than to chance a landing. If we have made a fuel plan, we can use this as the backbone of our planning. If the time ticks down and we still haven't been able to make an approach, it may be time to divert to our alternate. Bottom line As the saying goes, safety is no accident. The culture which a CEO creates from the top of an airline will filter all the way down to the very bottom of the hierarchy. How the pilots fly the aircraft, how they are trained and the environment in which they operate is all part of the corporate safety culture. By creating a plan in the calm of the cruise, pilots give themselves an escape plan should things diverge from the expected course of action. They should never find themselves backed into a corner with only one option on the table. https://thepointsguy.com/news/land-or-divert-decision/ Back to Top New NTSB report on fatal air ambulance crash shows no mechanical failure or malfunction Over a year and a half after an air ambulance plane broke up in the air northwest of Mandan, federal investigators are still working out what caused the crash to happen. The National Transportation Safety Board released a factual report on the aviation accident that killed pilot Todd Lasky, NICU nurse Bonnie Cook, and flight paramedic Chris Iverson on the night of November 18th, 2018. The report ruled out some equipment-related explanations for the crash. "An examination of the left and right engines showed no mechanical malfunctions or failure that would have prevented normal operation of either engine," the report reads. "No evidence of failure or malfunction of the propellers was found," it continues. However, pilot Todd Lasky did report concerns about the plane's autopilot "jerking" on a flight from Minot to Denver in November of 2018, according to text messages retrieved from his cell phone by investigators. The NTSB's factual report is not the board's final report on the crash, and does not draw any conclusions about what caused it to happen. A spokesperson for the NTSB says the final report may take months to be released. The report says about nine minutes after the plane took off from Bismarck toward Williston, it rapidly lost altitude and made a steep turn before radar contact was lost. No distress calls were made from the plane before it crashed. https://www.kxnet.com/news/local-news/new-ntsb-report-on-fatal-air-ambulance-crash-shows-no-mechanical-failure-or-malfunction/ Back to Top El Al Israel Airlines chairman steps down for medical reasons JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The chairman of El Al Israel Airlines (ELAL.TA), Eli Defes, is stepping down immediately because of an undisclosed medical condition, he said on Sunday. Defes joined El Al's board in 2015 and became chairman in 2017. It was not immediately clear who would replace Defes, but it would probably be one of two vice chairpeople: Yehuda Levy or Tamar Mozes-Borovitz. Israel's flag carrier is fighting for survival after the COVID-19 pandemic added to its difficulties, forcing it to suspend flights and furlough most of its employees. It has reported losses for the last two years and racked up debt to renew its fleet. Last month Eli Rozenberg, a U.S. citizen resident in Israel, offered to funnel $75 million into the airline in return for a 45% stake. At the same time, El Al is in advanced negotiations for a government bailout to avoid bankruptcy following the pandemic. The government offered to back $250 million in bank loans in exchange for El Al issuing $150 million in shares, which the state will buy if no-one else does in a public offering. El Al's board has yet to vote on Rozenberg's offer, which would also need shareholders' approval. "I have full confidence in the company's management and board members who will know how to lead El Al to beyond this crisis to a more stable and secure future," Defes wrote in his resignation letter, a copy of which was seen by Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-el-al-arlns-chairman-resignation/el-al-israel-airlines-chairman-steps-down-for-medical-reasons-idUSKCN25C0JV Back to Top Boeing 727 offering weightless experience comes to Long Beach Airport The experience - which costs $6,700 - included breakfast, flight training, 15 periods of weightlessness, a flight suit and a branded mask. A Boeing 727 aircraft that simulates the weightless feeling of space stopped at the Long Beach Airport Sunday, Aug. 16, kicking off the Zero Gravity Corporation's renewed operations after shutting down for months amid the coronavirus pandemic. Zero Gravity Corporation, also known as ZERO-G, is a 16-year-old privately held space entertainment and tourism company that remains the only federally approved opportunity in the U.S. for folks to experience true weightlessness - without leaving the planet. The experience - which costs $6,700 - included breakfast, flight training, 15 periods of weightlessness, a flight suit and a branded mask. The modified Boeing 727, named G-FORCE ONE, features an upgraded system that allows for continuous hydraulic pressure during performance. After taking off, the plane flew in parabolic arcs and - when it reached the peak of its ascent - allowed passengers nearly 30 seconds of weightlessness. From the airport, the plane flew in a military box - an area that is 100 miles long and 10 miles wide. Following its landing, the floaters received a certificate of weightless completion. ZERO-G had to change its 2020 schedule after the COVID-19 outbreak began back in March. The company has updated its health and safety plan, including pre-flight pulse and temperature checks, providing personal protective equipment and reducing flight capacities by 30%. G-FORCE ONE, which typically accommodates 36 passengers, now allows 24. The next stops on the company's tour will include a West Coast swing through San Jose, Seattle and Las Vegas, before heading east and stopping in Newark, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. https://www.presstelegram.com/2020/08/16/boeing-727-offering-weightless-experience-comes-to-long-beach-airport/ Back to Top Icarus Launches Optionally-Piloted Multi-Role Aircraft Montreal, Quebec-based company Icarus Aerospace has unveiled a new military aircraft that it describes as "highly customizable, versatile, capable and reliable." Known as the Tactical Air Vehicle (TAV), and as the Wasp in its fully militarized armed overwatch/persistent presence version, the optionally-piloted design employs a similar twin-boom, high-tail configuration to the Vietnam-era North American OV-10 Bronco. Icarus claims that the TAV offers 90 percent of the combat capability of a modern fighter at 15 percent of the cost. As such the type could prove attractive to both large air arms seeking a low-cost ISR/attack/maritime aircraft and to small air arms requiring a versatile combat aircraft that can perform many tasks within limited budgets. To be powered by two turboprops in the 1,700-hp class, the TAV has an MTOW of up to 21,000 pounds, service ceiling of 36,000 feet, and an expected top speed of 360 knots. Unrefueled endurance is calculated at 6.5 hours, but the aircraft has a refueling probe and automated aerial refueling capability. In terms of equipment the TAV can be fitted with a conformally-mounted 360-degree Leonardo Osprey radar, and can carry one or two electro-optic sensor turrets. Eleven hardpoints can mount a wide array of weaponry, including air-to-air missiles, and there is a three-barrel rotary cannon mounted in a fairing on the lower port fuselage side. An option is a turret-style cannon mounted on the underside, similar to that trialed by the YOV-10D NOGS variant of the Bronco. Total payload is listed as 8,000 pounds. The TAV has been designed for operations from austere, rough-surface airstrips, and for ease of deployment. The design is envisioned as an optionally-piloted vehicle, with the ability to be flown by a crew of one or two, by remote control, or fully autonomously. The TAV is a network-centric, "swarm-capable" aircraft, says Icarus. At first glance the TAV/Wasp would appear to be a natural contender for the armed ISR/light attack/special operations support/border patrol roles. This growing field is currently dominated by the Beechcraft AT-6 Wolverine and Embraer A-29 Super Tucano, although there are other players, such as the Textron Scorpion, the South African AHRLAC/Bronco II and missionized agricultural aircraft. Icarus, however, is targeting a much wider mission set with the TAV, to include electronic warfare and intelligence-gathering, among other duties. The TAV is also being aimed at maritime patrol/anti-submarine warfare, and the listed stores options include anti-ship missiles, sonobuoys and torpedoes. Other roles include medical evacuation, inflight refueling and re-arm/resupply transport. These roles would presumably make use of the aircraft's long fuselage to accommodate fuel tanks and refueling gear, cargo and wounded personnel. In addition to the baseline TAV, Icarus is proposing the 27,000-pound MTOW Branta version with a 98-foot wing span instead of the Wasp's 51-foot wing. This offers an endurance of over 30 hours and a service ceiling in the order of 50,000 feet, with only a slight reduction in top speed to 330 knots. As with the TAV, it is an optionally piloted vehicle that can be used for both armed and unarmed ISR tasks. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-08-14/icarus-launches-optionally-piloted-multi-role-aircraft Back to Top Boom ready to roll out its first jet en route to carbon neutral supersonic travel The XB-1 will demonstrate key technologies designed for what could be the first commercial supersonic jet since the Concorde. It's been nearly 20 years since anyone booked a ticket on a supersonic jet, but Boom is set to take a big step toward its goal of bringing that option back to commercial passengers. The Denver-based startup is scheduled to unveil its XB-1 supersonic jet on Oct. 7. The XB-1 is a one-third scale demonstrator of the Overture, which Boom hopes will be the first commercial supersonic jet since the Concorde. "Overture will take you from New York to London in three and a half hours, or San Francisco to Tokyo in six." CEO Blake Scholl told me. In addition to being the fastest commercial jet ever built, the Overture will operate 100% carbon neutral, Boom says. Boom expects test flights of the XB-1 to begin sometime in 2021, with the goal of putting Overture into service by 2030. https://www.cnet.com/news/boom-supersonic-ready-to-roll-out-its-first-aircraft/ Back to Top Rolls-Royce closing Virginia jet parts plant where 280 work The closing is reportedly the result of the decline in global travel during the COVID-19 pandemic Rolls-Royce will close its aircraft parts factory in central Virginia by the middle of next year, throwing 280 people out of work, the company confirmed on Saturday. The closing is the result of the decline in global travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. There had already been 120 layoffs at the plant in June. "The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a historic collapse in civil aviation which will take several years to recover. As a result, we've had to make difficult, but necessary, decisions to protect the future of our business," Rolls-Royce North America spokesman Don Campbell said in a statement. British-based Rolls-Royce has its North American headquarters in northern Virginia. The factory opened in 2011 in an office park in Prince George County, about 40 miles (64 kilometers) southeast of Richmond. The plant makes precision aircraft components such as rotative discs and turbine blades, the newspaper said. Workers were told about the plant closing on Friday, which could have a ripple effect on the central Virginia economy as factory suppliers lose business. The plant's construction was announced in 2007. The state provided an incentives package worth $57 million, most of it linked to employment and investment targets that the company would have to meet over 16 years. The plant initially was supposed to test and assemble components for corporate jets, but the Great Recession led Rolls-Royce to change its plans. Then-President Barack Obama visited the plant in 2012 to talk up his proposal of a network of U.S. research centers to foster manufacturing competitiveness. https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/rolls-royce-closing-virginia-jet-parts-plant-where-280-work Back to Top Lufthansa cabin crew union members back cost cut deal BERLIN (Reuters) - Cabin crew at Lufthansa have voted overwhelmingly in favour of a deal to stop pay rises and cut hours, the UFO trade union said on Saturday as the German airline battles to rein in losses due to the coronavirus pandemic. Lufthansa reached the deal in June with UFO, which represents 22,000 cabin crew, to reap more than 500 million euros ($592.05 million) in savings from shorter hours and an equivalent cut in pay as well as a temporary reduction in pension contributions. Last week, the airline put German workers on notice of compulsory layoffs, saying the slump in travel and slow progress in union negotiations meant cuts were unavoidable after the carrier lost 1.7 billion euros in a single quarter. Lufthansa, which in June received a 9 billion euro government bailout to secure its future, said last week it expected capacity to recover to only around 50% of normal by the end of 2020 and to two thirds of last year's level in 2021. Lufthansa said on Thursday it had walked away from talks with union Verdi on behalf of 35,000 ground staff over a package to cut staff costs and would only return to the negotiating table if Verdi offers significant cost savings. https://www.yahoo.com/news/lufthansa-cabin-crew-union-members-090608213.html Back to Top United is ripping seats out of its regional jets and it's a bad sign for pilots and passengers United is reducing seats on its Embraer E175 aircraft from 76 to 70 to comply with a clause of its pilot union contract, FlightGlobal reported. The "scope clause" in the contract limits the role of regional aircraft, preventing United from outsourcing too many flying jobs to its smaller partner airlines. October 1 will likely see the airline begin to furlough pilots, at which point regional jets will need to be compliant to the new restrictions under the clause. United Airlines' Embraer E175 aircraft are heading to the maintenance hangar for a retrofit that will actually reduce their total number of seats. The largest regional jets operated under the United Express brand will purposely be made less economical to fly thanks to what's known as a "scope clause" in United's pilot contract, FlightGlobal reported. The six-seat reduction from 76 to 70 seats on all of its Embraer E175s is mandatory per the contract as United plans to furlough pilots - which triggers the seat removal, United told AviationWeek - after assistance under the CARES Act vanishes on October 1. Though it seems counterintuitive to make a plane less capable of generating revenue during the pandemic - considering United has committed to filling its planes to capacity - the move is actually protecting United's pilots. As part of a deal with the pilot union, United can have 255 regional jets that seat greater than 50 and no more than 76 seats, according to FlightGlobal. The reduction in demand that the pandemic has inflicted would have made regional jets more attractive to fly since they carry fewer passengers further at a lower cost than mainline jets. But having those scope limitations in place is preventing United from outsourcing its mainline operation to the regional partners. https://www.yahoo.com/news/united-ripping-seats-regional-jets-121900808.html Back to Top A mania for Mars Three countries just launched unmanned missions to the Red Planet in hopes of finding evidence of life. Why the fascination with Mars? Here's everything you need to know: Who's going to Mars? The United Arab Emirates kicked off a trio of missions with the July 19 launch of its orbiter, Hope. China followed four days later with Tianwen-1 (literally "Questions to Heaven"), a three-pronged mission that includes a lander, a rover, and an orbiter. NASA concluded the fireworks on July 30 with Perseverance, designed to put the largest, most sophisticated rover yet on Mars. Each of the new missions will arrive at Mars in February, with both NASA and China looking for evidence that there is current microbial life under the surface or that such life once existed there. Such a finding would be "extraordinary" and indicate life may exist in many other places in the universe, said Dr. Sarah Johnson, a planetary scientist at Georgetown University. In a memoir called Sirens of Mars, Johnson writes about how the search for life on the planet inspired her to become a planetologist. Mars, she writes, has long been humanity's "mirror, our foil, a telltale reflection of what has been deepest in our hearts. Mars has been a blank canvas. And tenderly, our human seeking has rushed to fill it." What is so interesting about Mars? The fourth planet from the sun is more like Earth than any of the others. It's about half our planet's size, has variable seasons, polar ice caps, and plains and gullies possibly shaped by water flow. "All of that," said David Weintraub, a professor of astronomy at Vanderbilt University, "made it easy for us to tell ourselves that life was likely to have emerged there." At the same time, its relative proximity - in October, it will swing to within 38.6 million miles of Earth - has made it seem within reach of a space mission. The interest in Mars was ignited in 1877, when the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli noted a series of mysterious lines seemingly etched into the Martian surface. He described them as canali, which literally means "channels" but was mistranslated into "canals," carrying the hint they had been constructed by intelligent life. The idea was seized upon some 20 years later by the influential American astronomer Percival Lowell, who theorized that the canals were created by an ancient, dying civilization to channel water as the Martian surface dried into the red desert it is today. The canals "run for thousands of miles in an unswerving direction, as far relatively as from London to Bombay," Lowell wrote. Later, the lines were proved to be nothing more than an optical illusion. Which nation got there first? In July 1965, NASA achieved the first successful fly-by with a craft called Mariner 4. During ensuing decades, the U.S. and the Soviet Union periodically dispatched orbiters and landers to the planet. During the late 1990s, NASA's Mars Global Surveyor discovered dry riverbeds and evidence of glacial activity - ¬suggesting that water once existed in abundance on Mars. Since water is associated with life, the finding reignited interest in Mars; in subsequent years, the U.S., Russia, China, and other nations sent nearly 20 -missions there. NASA's Curiosity rover has been exploring the planet since 2012. Have we found life? No, although the question isn't without controversy. The 1976 NASA mission discovered four samples that registered as positive for microbial respiration, but a subsequent test found no signs of organic matter. Most scientists attribute the positives to a quirk of soil chemistry. Still, Curiosity has found evidence of organic compounds hinting at the past or current presence of microbial life. There is hope that Perseverance may finally settle the question. It carries equipment to search for the biological signatures of life, and the rover will drill into the Martian soil and eventually send samples back to Earth. "The goal," said NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, "is to discover life on another world." When will humans go? NASA's timeline calls for a crewed mission to the moon by 2024, a lunar base by 2028, and flights from the moon base to Mars sometime in the 2030s. SpaceX is planning uncrewed missions to Mars about two years from now; if all goes well, says SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, he may launch a manned mission in 2024. But manned missions still face huge obstacles. On a one-way, five- to 10-month journey to Mars through space, astronauts would be bombarded with so much radiation, it could cause cancer, affect their vision, and even disrupt their central nervous systems. "As it stands today, we can't go to Mars, due to radiation," said physicist Marco Durante. "It would be impossible to meet acceptable dose limits." Scientists also worry about the impact on humans of a prolonged period of reduced gravity and isolation. Musk says the first travelers to Mars must be "prepared to die" on the Red Planet. Still, he said, "it would be an incredible adventure." The challenge of landing safely Landing a manned spaceship on Mars will be extremely difficult. The planet's atmosphere is about 100 times thinner than Earth's, making it considerably harder to slow a craft while it hurtles toward the surface at an estimated speed of 13,000 miles per hour. Unmanned landers have overcome this hurdle by using parachutes and inflatables that enable the craft to bounce rather than crash, but current technology doesn't allow for larger, heavier manned craft to land safely this way. Since landing on Mars with the weight of sufficient fuel for a return journey is impractical, NASA has plans for a craft it calls the Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). This vehicle will be sent to Mars ahead of time without any fuel, so that it is light enough to land. The MAV would then create its own fuel by squeezing oxygen from the carbon dioxide-heavy Martian atmosphere. Once astronauts land on the planet, NASA's plan calls for them to get aboard the fully self-fueled MAV, launch from the surface, dock with an orbiting craft, and then journey back to Earth. https://www.yahoo.com/news/mania-mars-105501800.html Back to Top Back to Top The USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Will Offer Online Classes This Fall The following upcoming courses, including NEW Safety Performance Indicators course, will take place in our virtual Webex classrooms. 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 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 Swinburne University Capstone Research Projects 2020 - Airline pax preferences Study Airline Passenger Carrier Preference Research Project 2020 The Low-Cost Carrier (LCC) business model has disrupted the aviation industry. It has generated new passenger demand, provided passengers with more choice and created many competitive challenges for the traditional Full-Service Carriers (FSC). As the global airline market continues to change and adapt to new challenges, airline passenger preferences and intent to travel may also change. As part of our undergraduate research project at Swinburne University of Technology we are conducting a survey on passenger preferences regarding the decision to fly between LCC and FSC airlines. This survey asks for your views on various issues associated with airline choice and seeks to better understand passenger risk perceptions and the perceived value offered by each airline model. You will be asked to complete an online questionnaire, which also includes an explanatory statement. The study takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. To access the survey, please go to the following link: https://swinuw.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wwfJDvc7chU3Cl Participants who complete the study will be eligible to enter a draw to win an iPad. 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 *** Image from: Uphues, J. (2019). Full service carrier vs. low cost carrier - What's future-proof? Retrieved from https://www.inform-software.com/blog/post/full-service-carrier-vs-low-cost-carrier-whats-future-proof 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 SURVEY: GA PILOTS AND PIREPs "Dear GA pilot, Researchers at Purdue University are seeking general aviation (GA) pilots to participate in an online study, partially funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) NextGen Weather Technology in the Cockpit (WTIC) program. The goal of this study is to evaluate opportunities for speech-based or other "hands-free" technologies that GA pilots might use to submit PIREPs. If you are able and willing to participate, you will be asked to review a set of 6 weather-related flight scenarios and record PIREPs as if you are flying. The study will last approximately 20 minutes and can be completed using a laptop or desktop computer. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You can withdraw your participation at any time during the study for any reason. If you agree to participate, you will be asked to acknowledge your voluntary participation. Then there are 4 questions about your flight history, 6 weather scenarios, and 4 questions about PIREPs. Responses to the survey will be completely anonymous. We ask that you complete the study in a quiet location free from background noise. You must be at least 18 years of age or older to participate. When you are ready to begin, please click here: https://purdue.ca1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6lZhv409DcoV8KF and follow the instructions in Qualtrics. Please feel free to share this link with other pilots you know. Email any questions or concerns to Mayur Deo and Dr. Brandon Pitts at nhance@purdue.edu." Back to Top Graduate Research Survey (1) Stress and Wellbeing for Global Aviation Professionals Dear colleagues, I am inviting you to participate in a research project on wellbeing in the aviation industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. This situation has affected aviation professionals around the world, and this research seeks to identify wellbeing strategies that work across professions, employers, families, and nations. All responses to this survey are anonymous. The findings of this research will inform future work by the USC Aviation Safety and Security Program and the Flight Safety Foundation to improve wellbeing for aviation professionals during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Please click or copy the link below to access the survey, and please share it with any interested colleagues. https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cC2nlWEAazl22TX This research will support a treatise towards a Master of Science in Applied Psychology degree at the University of Southern California's Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. The researcher is also on the staff of the USC Aviation Safety and Security Program. Thank you, and please contact us with any questions, Daniel Scalese - Researcher scalese@usc.edu Michael Nguyen - Faculty Advisor nguyenmv@usc.edu Curt Lewis