Flight Safety Information - December 31, 2020 No. 264 In This Issue : Incident: United B738 at San Jose on Dec 30th 2020, temporary runway excursion on landing : Incident: United B738 at Boston on Dec 25th 2020, hard landing : Incident: Canada A320 at Fort Lauderdale on Dec 25th 2020, passenger's cell phone battery charger on fire on short final : Incident: Delta A333 over Atlantic on Dec 28th 2020, engine trouble : Incident: France B772 near Perpignan on Dec 30th 2020, hydraulic leak : Blue Wing Airlines Cessna 208B Supervan 900 accident (Suriname) : Canada will require negative COVID-19 test for air passengers : DC Circuit is Considering Issuance of an Emergency Order to Re-Ground the Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft : EU ban on PIA: Aviation minister refuses to take responsibility : Alaska Airlines is the first airline to ban emotional support animals : 'A real bad precedent': Australia criticised for Antarctica airport plan : Sensors detect ice build-up and melt on aircraft : 2021 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference Incident: United B738 at San Jose on Dec 30th 2020, temporary runway excursion on landing A United Boeing 737-800, registration N73275 performing flight UA-1055 from Houston Intercontinental,TX (USA) to San Jose (Costa Rica) with 162 people on board, landed on San Jose's runway 07 at 18:33L (00:33Z Dec 31st) but veered left off the runway, the left main gear exited the paved surface of the runway running over grass for about 250 meters before the crew managed to return the aircraft onto the runway. The aircraft rolled out without further incident and taxied to the apron. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained minor damage. A number of runway edge lights were damaged as result of the runway excursion, too. Costa Rica's Civil Aviation Authority reported the aircraft landed on runway 07, apparently one of the gear struts left the runway for about 250 meters and returned onto the runway hitting some lights. An investigation has been opened. http://avherald.com/h?article=4e135670&opt=0 Incident: United B738 at Boston on Dec 25th 2020, hard landing A United Boeing 737-800, registration N17245 performing flight UA-1423 from Fort Lauderdale,FL to Boston,MA (USA), landed on Boston's runway 22L but touched down hard. The crew reported airspeed fluctuations of +/- 10 knots on short final below 200 feet AGL. The aircraft taxied to the apron. The FAA reported: "AIRCRAFT LANDED HARD ON RUNWAY 22L LEAVING POSSIBLE DEBRIS ON THE RUNWAY AT BOSTON, MA". The aircraft received minor damage. The occurrence was rated an incident. http://avherald.com/h?article=4e130888&opt=0 Incident: Canada A320 at Fort Lauderdale on Dec 25th 2020, passenger's cell phone battery charger on fire on short final An Air Canada Airbus A320-200, registration C-GKOD performing flight AC-902 from Montreal,QC (Canada) to Fort Lauderdale,FL (USA) with 134 people on board, was on final approach to Fort Lauderdale's runway 28R when a passenger contacted the flight attendants reporting his cell phone battery charger had caught fire. The flight attendants extinguished the fire with water and put the device into the PED (Portable Electronic Device) Secure containment bag. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 28R and taxied to the apron. The Canadian TSB reported the flight attendant informed the flight crew after the aircraft had landed and had turned off the runway. No emergency was declared and the aircraft taxied to the gate. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA902/history/20201225/1850Z/CYUL/KFLL Incident: Delta A333 over Atlantic on Dec 28th 2020, engine trouble A Delta Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration N810NW performing flight DL-262 from New York JFK,NY (USA) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was enroute at FL380 about 700nm southsouthwest of Keflavik (Iceland) when the crew decided to divert to Keflavik reporting a problem with the #1 engine (PW4168, left hand). The crew requested to descend to FL320 and set course for Keflavik, the turn to Keflavik was approved by Oceanic Control within a minute, however, the request to descent took more than 15 minutes due to a lot of traffic around that needed to be moved out, the aircraft continued to maintain FL380 in the meantime. Finally the aircraft descended to FL290 and landed safely on Keflavik's runway 01 about 2 hours after the decision to divert. The engine is being replaced. The aircraft is still on the ground in Keflavik about 62 hours after landing. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/DAL262/history/20201227/2355Z/KJFK/LFPG http://avherald.com/h?article=4e12ffe1&opt=0 Incident: France B772 near Perpignan on Dec 30th 2020, hydraulic leak An Air France Boeing 777-200, registration F-GSPK performing flight AF-926 (dep Dec 29th) from Paris Charles de Gaulle (France) to Libreville (Gabon) with 194 people on board, was enroute at FL350 about 40nm north of Perpignan (France) when the crew decided to return to Paris Charles de Gaulle reporting they had a hydraulic leak. On approach to Paris the crew advised they might not be able to vacate the runway, the center hydraulic system suffered a leak affecting the braking, at that time there was still pressure in the system though. The aircraft landed safely on Paris Charles de Gaulle's runway 26R about 2 hours after departure. The crew advised they were able to taxi off the runway but stopped on the taxiway to be towed to the apron to limit possible damage. A replacement Boeing 777-300 registration F-GZNK departed Paris about 11 hours after F-GSPK had landed and reached Libreville with a delay of 12.5 hours. http://avherald.com/h?article=4e13059f&opt=0 Blue Wing Airlines Cessna 208B Supervan 900 accident (Suriname) Date: Wednesday 30 December 2020 Type: Cessna 208B Supervan 900 Operator: Blue Wing Airlines Registration: PZ-TSK C/n / msn: 208B0488 First flight: 1995 Engines: 1 Garrett TPE331-12JR Crew: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 1 Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 3 Total: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 4 Aircraft damage: Substantial Location: Kawemhaken-Lawa Anapaike Airstrip (Suriname) Phase: Landing (LDG) Nature: Cargo Departure airport: Paramaribo-Zorg en Hoop Airport (ORG/SMZO), Suriname Destination airport: Kawemhaken-Lawa Anapaike Airstrip (SMLA), Suriname Narrative: Upon landing, the airplane sustained a landing gear collapse. There were no personal injuries. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20201230-0 Canada will require negative COVID-19 test for air passengers (Reuters) - Canada will soon require that air travelers test negative for COVID-19 before arrival, federal ministers said on Wednesday, after social media images of maskless tourists prompted a call for stricter measures to curb the virus. “Canada will quickly implement the requirement for all arriving passengers to have a negative PCR COVID test three days before arriving in Canada,” said Dominic LeBlanc, intergovernmental affairs minister, at a media briefing. Bill Blair, minister of public safety, later said the new requirement would apply to air passengers, while the federal government is working with provinces on how to supplement strong measures with additional testing at Canada’s land borders. He said the federal government will discuss the measure with the airline industry and share more details soon. Canada reported a total of 565,506 cases of COVID-19 as of Wednesday, 6,442 more than the day before, as new cases surged across western Canada, Ontario and Quebec. The pre-boarding testing will not eliminate the requirement for people arriving in the country to quarantine for 14 days, Blair said. “We strongly advise against all discretionary travel,” said Blair, while noting that Canadian governments cannot stop citizens who choose to travel from returning home. Travelers who break quarantine face up to six months in jail or up to C$750,000 in fines. On Tuesday, Quebec urged the federal government to require COVID-19 testing for residents returning from year-end vacations. Canada’s travel restrictions are among the world’s toughest, with non-essential foreigners normally denied entry and citizens returning from abroad mandated to quarantine. Canadian health authorities have found patients with the more transmissible variant of the coronavirus first found in the United Kingdom and South Africa in four provinces, including Ontario. Most of the patients recently traveled to the United Kingdom, according to media reports, and two had contact with a recent traveler. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-canada/canada-will-require-negative-covid-19-test-for-air-passengers-idUSKBN294213 DC Circuit is Considering Issuance of an Emergency Order to Re-Ground the Boeing 737 MAX Aircraft After two foreign-territory crashes and a resulting 21-month-plus forced grounding, the Boeing 737 MAX returned to the U.S. skies on December 29, 2020, which followed authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on November 18. The Airworthiness Directive issued by the FAA for resumption of MAX service spells out the requirements that must be met before U.S. carriers can fly the planes, including installation of software enhancements, completion of wire separation modifications, conduct of pilot training, and the accomplishment of thorough de-preservation activities that will ensure the airplanes are ready for service. But just as the 737 MAX is returning to service, Boeing and the FAA face an aggressive effort by a non-profit passenger organization seeking to reground the 737 MAX for another year while the organization’s newly-filed legal challenge to the FAA authorization is considered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The demand to halt use of the 737 MAX during the legal challenge to the FAA re-authorization faces considerable obstacles, especially given the high amount of deference that courts give to safety determinations made by the FAA. However, the fate of the 737 MAX will remain “up in the air” at least until the DC Circuit – presumably in January – rules on the pending emergency motion to stay the FAA’s allowance of the jet to operate in the United States. The outcome of the pending emergency motion will impact not only Boeing, the FAA, the airlines that operate the 737 MAX, and their passengers, but also more generally the ability of the FAA to regulate the airline industry without unprecedented supervision by the judicial system. The Legal Challenge to FAA Re-Authorization of the 737 MAX and Emergency Motion to Stay On December 3, 2020, Flyers Rights Education Fund, Inc. and some of its individual members filed a petition for review with the DC Circuit, challenging the FAA’s decision to allow the aircraft to return to service. Twenty days later, on December 23, 2020, Flyers Rights filed an emergency motion to stay the effectiveness of the FAA decision until after the DC Circuit rules on the merits of the legal challenge. The court has ordered the FAA to respond by January 6, and Flyers Rights to file a reply brief by January 8. So it is possible that the court could preliminarily enjoin the ability of U.S. airlines to operate the 737 MAX until after the DC Circuit case is resolved. In support of its stay motion, Flyers Rights alleges that: (1) the FAA has improperly refused to disclose the evidence on which it predicated its determination that the redesigned aircraft is safe, and (2) absent injunctive relief the organizations’ members will be irreparably injured because the 737 MAX aircraft may crash with them aboard. Flyers Rights asserts that the “individual petitioners are fearful for their lives and safety because, although the FAA has approved design and software changes the agency says now make the plane safe to fly, the agency has withheld from the public record the actual procedures it used to test these changes for safety and in flight, and the actual results of those tests.” According to Flyers Rights, “[i]ndependent experts have determined that without such information, it is impossible to determine if there is an adequate factual basis for the FAA’s decision to allow the plane to fly again.” The new litigation is tied to a lawsuit filed by Flyers Rights in 2019 to compel the FAA to disclose information relating to the 737 MAX under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Flyers Rights claims that the FAA “has, for more than a year, resisted producing this information, withholding it under Exemption 4 of FOIA (confidential commercial information),” and that “[c]ross-motions for summary judgment on that issue are pending before the District Court” for the District of Columbia. According to Flyers Rights, their experts in support of the emergency motion before the DC Circuit are concerned that: (1) although the FAA claims that it is necessary to retain the “Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System” (MCAS) on the MAX (to improve pilot handling when the nose goes up too much), it also maintains that the aircraft can be operated safely without MCAS operating (since it supposedly will be automatically deactivated if the signals for its activation disagree, indicating they’re unreliable); (2) the FAA’s conclusion that the MAX can be flown safely without MCAS operable is unsupported; and (3) a crucial defect that contributed to the crashes was an erroneous signal from a single failed angle of attack sensor, triggering activation of the MCAS in a situation in which it should not have been turned on. But what if MCAS is de-activated in a situation in which it should actually be turned on because one of the two sensors was off? There is an algorithm that picks a middle value. Does it work? The FAA claims that it tested the system, but according to Flyers Rights, the FAA did not disclose the facts regarding how such a test was conducted or what were the specific results. Flyers Rights also claims that a stay by the DC Circuit is warranted because the “FAA will suffer no harm as its highest priority should be ensuring passenger safety,” and that, although “Boeing may suffer some financial loss from delay in ungrounding,” the airlines who operate the 737 MAX “will not suffer from any delay” because of the downturn in airline travel caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Extensive Deference Afforded the FAA on Aircraft Safety Issues If the DC Circuit denies the emergency motion for a stay, it may be because of the considerable deference that the courts give to the FAA on aircraft safety determinations. See, e.g., Schwartz v. Helms, 712 F.2d 633, 638 (DC Cir. 1983) (“the question before us is clearly one which calls particularly upon the agency’s expertise. It poses technical questions both of fact—on the evaluation of complex scientific and medical evidence on the risks posed by coronary heart disease—and of policy—on the degree of risk of heart attack which may be tolerated among air pilots consistent with air traffic safety. When questions such as these are presented to us, we should be particularly hesitant in reversing the agency’s determinations”);Professional Pilots Federation v. FAA, 118 F.3d 758 (DC Cir. 1997) (granting deference to and affirming the FAA decision not to institute rulemaking to relax requirement that commercial airline pilots retire at age 60); Public Citizen, Inc. v. FAA, 988 F.2d 186 (DC Cir. 1993) (deferring to rules adopted by the FAA for minimum aviation security personnel training requirements and staffing levels). Flyers Rights acknowledges that, “FAA may contend that given the agency’s technical expertise, its finding that successful tests and analyses were conducted should simply be accepted at face value...” But Flyers Rights asserts that a report released recently by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation revealed, based on information from a whistleblower, that in a crucial test of pilot reaction time—how quickly they would react to a certain kind of mistaken MCAS activation—Boeing officials were present for the testing and tipped off the test pilots in advance. Senate Commerce Committee, Committee Investigation Report, Aviation Safety Oversight 44-45 (Dec. 18, 2020). However, this assertion is the legal equivalent of a Hail Mary pass attempt. Even if a whistleblower alleged that test pilots improperly received coaching before operating the MAX controls, that does not establish a basis for concluding that the FAA failed to take its safety obligations seriously when it approved resumption of MAX service. Alleged FAA Reliance on Business Confidential Information from Boeing Flyers Rights also asserts that the FAA re-authorization process is flawed because the FAA has not released to the public all of the information on which its safety assessment was based. This allegedly includes business confidential information of Boeing. Flyers Rights claims that the court “will not uphold the FAA’s action when the agency has relied on information that it refuses to disclose because the information is supposedly proprietary,” and as support cites its own prior litigation: FlyersRights Education Fund, Inc., v. FAA, 864 F.3d 738 (DC Cir. 2017). However, the 2017 case is not particularly relevant to the new matter. The 2017 litigation involved a failed attempt by Flyers’ Rights to require the FAA to issue a rule which prohibited the further reduction in commercial airline seats and legroom. FlyersRights “challenged the FAA’s refusal to engage in rulemaking on airplane seating, arguing that the shrinking space between airline seat rows, coupled with an increase in average passenger size, created a safety risk by making it harder for passengers to get out in an emergency. In rejecting the request for rulemaking, the FAA claimed that emergency evacuation tests had been successfully conducted in planes with the smaller seat dimensions. But the agency refused to disclose the actual tests, claiming they were proprietary.” The DC Circuit granted the prior petition for review in part, holding that the FAA had “relied on undisclosed tests using unknown parameters,” 864 F.3d at 741 and that the agency simply could not rely on tests that it insisted on withholding from the public record. The court stated that it could not “affirm the sufficiency of what [it] cannot see,” and that “[w]hatever deference” the court generally accords to administrative agencies, it would “not defer to a declaration of fact that is ‘capable of exact proof’ but is unsupported by any evidence.’” Id. at 746-47. The 2017 Flyers Rights case seems readily distinguishable from the current litigation. To begin with, it is not accurate that the FAA possesses no evidence to support its safety determination for the re-engineered MAX 737. There is abundant evidence that the FAA has placed on the record to support its findings. Second, in the 2017 case the record unambiguously showed that the FAA had neglected to consider a highly relevant fact: namely, that over the past several years the average size of U.S. airline passengers has increased, which means that prior studies about whether seat size and pitch allowed for egress in an emergency situation were too stale to be reliable. By contrast, Flyers Rights has not pointed to any specific countervailing facts which would call into doubt the reliability of the FAA’s determination that the 737 MAX is now safe. Also, the court, in granting “Flyers Rights’ petition for review in part, and remanding to the [FAA] for a properly reasoned disposition of the petition’s safety concerns about the adverse impact of decreased seat dimensions and increased passenger size on aircraft emergency egress,” did not in any manner enjoin the conduct of the airlines during or after the case was considered. The remedy of forcing the 737 MAX out of U.S. skies while the DC Circuit receives, considers, and analyzes the parties’ legal briefs on the merits of Flyers Rights’ challenge, and holds oral argument and reaches a decision, is one not at all likely to be ordered by the court. Nevertheless, the chance remains, and this all adds yet another layer of uncertainty to the ongoing saga of the 737 MAX. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4287a068-d1f1-4274-9a00-d91a618c710a EU ban on PIA: Aviation minister refuses to take responsibility ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Imran Khan may have admitted that the fake pilots issue was mishandled but Aviation Minister Ghulam Sarwar Khan has refused to take responsibility for the damage his statement did to the Pakistan International Airline. Talking to Shahzeb Khanzada on Geo News’ Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath show on Wednesday, the PTI minister downplayed the matter by saying that every airline in the world was suffering losses. Khanzada interjected that the aviation industry was facing losses due to the coronavirus pandemic. The PIA, on the other hand, is facing bans due to the fake license controversy. On December 26, the aviation minister told reporters that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) had been satisfied and the ban would be revoked soon. However, in a letter dated December 24, the EASA had extended the ban and said it would not be reviewed until a safety audit of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was conducted. To this, Ghulam Sarwar Khan said the PIA's report had a satisfactory score of “97.6%” which was considered “great”. But Khanzada stressed that the national carrier may have satisfied the EASA but the ban remained due to the minister’s statements. “Should we not have taken any action? You should appreciate that someone is taking initiative. Our transparency should be appreciated," said the aviation minister. Khanzada added that the attorney general of Pakistan had also admitted before the Islamabad High Court that the issue was mishandled. It may be mentioned here that the aviation minister first revealed the fake license matter while briefing the Parliament on a plane crash. Subsequently, the aviation minister announced that the qualifications of 262 pilots in Pakistan are "dubious" and thus they will be barred from flying. He said that a total of 753 pilots are serving in Pakistani airlines, while 107 are serving in foreign airlines bringing the number to 860. However, further investigations revealed that 182 out of the 262 pilots have valid credentials. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/767176-eu-ban-on-pia-aviation-minister-refuses-to-take-responsibility Alaska Airlines is the first airline to ban emotional support animals Alaska Airlines is the first U.S. carrier to ban emotional support animals on its flights following a Department of Transportation ruling that airlines will only be required to transport service dogs. Beginning Jan. 11, the airline will allow only service dogs that are “specially trained” and will refuse transport to emotional support animals. The DOT rule change came early this month following the agency’s decision to revise its Air Carrier Access legislation because passengers have for years been requesting airlines accept their “service” pigs, rabbits and peacocks. Until now, the department had not defined what constituted a service animal, and all emotional support animals were federally required to be permitted on planes. In 2017, the trade group Airlines for America estimated that the number of emotional support animals traveling on commercial flights increased to 751,000, a sharp rise from the 481,000 seen the year before. [Airlines will no longer be required to transport emotional support animals] “Following recent changes to U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) rules, Alaska Airlines will no longer accept emotional support animals on its flights,” the airline said in a news release. “Alaska will only transport service dogs, which are specially trained to perform tasks for the benefit of a qualified individual with a disability.” On its website, the airline states that size of all service dogs allowed onboard “must not exceed the footprint or personal space of the guest’s seat or foot area during the entire flight.” The service dog must also be leashed at all times, is expected to “behave properly,” cannot occupy a seat or tray table and may not be under four months old. The airline called the move a necessary step. “This regulatory change is welcome news, as it will help us reduce disturbances onboard, while continuing to accommodate our guests traveling with qualified service animals,” Ray Prentice, director of customer advocacy at Alaska Airlines, said in the news release. “The final rule announced today addresses concerns raised by individuals with disabilities, airlines, flight attendants, airports, other aviation transportation stakeholders and other members of the public, regarding service animals on aircraft,” DOT officials said in a statement announcing the rule change on Dec. 2. Alaska Airlines flights will accept passengers who booked travel before Jan. 11 to bring an emotional support animal other than a dog only up until Mar. 1. The DOT originally took up the ban on service animals in January 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2020/12/30/alaska-airlines-emotional-support-animals/ 'A real bad precedent': Australia criticized for Antarctica airport plan Multibillion-dollar project is unnecessary and damaging to wildlife, say scientists Australia is planning to build Antarctica’s biggest infrastructure project: a new airport and runway that would increase the human footprint in the world’s greatest wilderness by an estimated 40%. The mega-scheme is likely to involve blasting petrel rookeries, disturbing penguin colonies and encasing a stretch of the wilderness in more than 115,000 tonnes of concrete. The government in Canberra says the project on the Vestfold Hills of Princess Elizabeth Land is necessary to provide year-round access for scientists and emergency teams to Davis research station, Australia’s most southerly base in Antarctica. Strategic concerns are also a consideration; Australia is keen to counter China’s growing presence on the frozen southern continent. Environmental scientists say the multi-billion-dollar plan is a waste of money, and could lead to a destructive construction race among territorial rivals. “It’s unprecedented in the Antarctic in terms of the scale of investment and the impact on the environment. Although it is being done in the name of science, very few scientists are enthusiastic. This is more about flag-waving. It is about firming up Australia’s presence and our claim,” said Shaun Brooks, an environmental scientist at the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies of the University at Tasmania. He estimates the project would add 40% to the existing infrastructure on the continent, which would be damaging and unnecessary. “I can’t help thinking this will become a white elephant. How can you justify a multi-billion-dollar runway for a base with only 19 people during the winter and which has been maintained without problems since 1957?” Brooks said. Australia’s proposed new airstrip would be 2.7km long and 40 metres wide, and – unlike existing ice and gravel runways in Antarctica – it would be a permanent structure built on top of the landscape with cement and 11,500 concrete blocks, each weighing more than 10 tonnes. Pollution, dust, noise and carbon emissions are further problems. Shipping the materials from Hobart is expected to take more than a decade and about 100 icebreaker voyages. The government says the land would be flattened by blasting, crushing and filling with a total 3m cubic metres of earthworks. The project will require the construction of a storage area for explosives, land reclamation from the sea for a new wharf, new tanks for aviation fuel and a 4km access road. As well as the destruction of wildlife habitat during construction, the operation of the completed airport would bring regular disruption to breeding colonies of southern giant petrels, seals and Adélie penguins. Multiple studies and case histories have shown the negative impact of aircraft on Antarctic wildlife. In the 1980s, a single mail drop by a low-flying plane led to a stampede at a king penguin colony that caused 7,000 deaths. The Vestfold Hills are home to colonies of nesting Adélie penguins, who must keep stationary on their eggs for long periods if chicks are to hatch successfully. If mothers are panicked by aircraft, eggs can be left exposed to freezing winds and predators. Among those who have spoken out against the project is Geoff Dimmock, a retired logistics manager. As a former organiser of mail drops and supply missions in the region, he said there was no way for the project to avoid noise disruption and contamination. “I don’t want the hills flattened,” he said. “Environmentally, I think this is a real bad precedent to set. And it’s poor value for money.” Politicians have asked whether the government will break its own guidelines, which say aircraft should not fly within 2.1km of a penguin colony and that no runway should be within 500 metres of breeding seals. The Green party senator of Tasmania, Peter Whish-Wilson went further during a parliamentary session in October. How, he asked, could a project with the largest human footprint in Antarctic history align with the stated goal of Australia to promote “leadership and environmental stewardship” in the region? The Australian Antarctic Division said the environmental evaluation would be scrutinised domestically, submitted to other Antarctic Treaty nations and released for public consultation in Australia and internationally. “The construction of the aerodrome will have some unavoidable impacts and we are committed to understanding the environmental impacts and implementing mitigation measures to the highest standards possible, and in line with the legislated requirements,” a representative wrote in an email statement to the Guardian. Plans for a permanent airport at Davis were first floated decades ago, but past governments have balked at the cost. In recent years, the idea has been revived and it is now being pushed forward by the head of the Australian Antarctic Division, Kim Ellis, who is a former military officer and chief executive of Sydney Airport. The Australian Antarctic Division says a major upgrade is overdue. Flights to Antarctica currently land on a blue-ice runway at Wilkins Aerodrome during the southern summer from October to March. This is increasingly inoperable due to global heating. High temperatures destabilise the runway surface. Closures for this reason used to last for six weeks. Last summer, this increased to 10 weeks. Plans for a paved runway are now undergoing environmental assessment. Budget discussions are expected in 2022. If approvals are granted, construction would begin in 2023 and run until 2040 at the earliest. Conservationists say the evaluation process is flawed because it will be signed off by the environment minister Sussan Ley, who is a vocal advocate for the planned runway. She has described it as part of “a new era of Australian Antarctic endeavour”. The government is also conscious that China and Russia are upgrading their bases in the region. Activists say there are viable alternatives, such as aircraft that use skis instead of wheels for take-off and landing. The US military demonstrated that was possible even in the dark depths of winter by flying into one of its bases with night vision to evacuate an injured explorer in 2008. Brooks said Australia’s airport plan would set the wrong precedent. “The scale of this is so out of step with our requirements. I think putting up this big flag will encourage others to do something similar,” he said. “It doesn’t align with Australia’s claim to be an environmental leader. Antarctica is special. Everywhere else in the world, you measure wilderness by what’s left. In Antarctica, it’s still the other way round.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/31/a-real-bad-precedent-australia-criticised-for-antarctica-airport-plan Sensors detect ice build-up and melt on aircraft Canadian researchers are improving the way sensors detect the build up of frost and ice, so aircraft operators can better address the risks related to ice build-up during flight. In a follow-up study from one released previously this year, Assistant Professor Mohammad Zarifi and his team at University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus (UBCO) Okanagan MicroElectronics and Gigahertz Applications (OMEGA) Lab, have broadened the scope and functionality of their ice sensors. “We received a great deal of interest from the aviation and renewable energy industries stemming from our initial findings which pushed us to expand the boundaries of the sensor’s responsiveness and accuracy,” explained Zarifi. Ice build-up on aircraft can impact the safety and efficiency of systems and in this latest research, the researchers focused on improving the real-time response of the sensors to determining frost and ice build-up. The sensors can identify in real-time these accumulations while calculating the rate of melting. This is crucial data for aviation, for keeping flights on time. “Power generation output of wind turbines diminishes as a result of ice accumulations,” he adds. “So, the industry sees great promise in sensing and de-icing solutions that can mitigate those reductions in efficiency.” Zarifi said that the patented sensor, which includes a protective layer, is now being tested by the aviation industry through a rigorous approval process and funding from the Department of National Defense will enable his team to continue to improve the sensor’s capabilities. The research team’s latest innovation is the capability sense salty ice, which freezes at colder temperatures. Interest in understanding and monitoring saltwater ice formation is increasing due to issues caused by saltwater ice on oil rigs and marine infrastructure. Zarifi and his team at OMEGA Lab are working towards the introduction of microwave/radar-based technology to address this challenge. By incorporating an antenna into the sensor, the results can be shared in real-time with the operator in order to address the build-up. Zarifi said his team is as excited as the industry partners to see how their microwave and antenna, which have proven to be durable and robust, can be modified for various applications including ice and moisture sensing. https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/technology/sensors-detect-ice-build-up-and-melt-on-aircraft.html 2021 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference Registration Now Open ** With over 500 registrants in just 10 days - the sponsors have extended the free registration to the first 1000 registrants ** 2021 Aircraft Cabin Air Conference 15 to 18 March 2021 1500 to 2000 GMT daily via Zoom (0700 to 1200 PST) Four online days of powerful talks given by industry and subject matter experts. Registration is open and FREE for the first 1000 registrants. https://www.aircraftcabinair.com/ Following on from the success of the 2017 and 2019 Aircraft Cabin Air Conferences, the 2021 conference will be an essential four-day free modular online event via Zoom. Providing an in-depth overview or update for all those seeking to understand the subject of contaminated air, the flight safety implications, the latest scientific and medical evidence investigating the contaminated air debate and the emerging solutions available to airlines and aircraft operators. The 2021 conference will be the biggest conference ever held on the issue. Who should participate? Airline Management - Aircraft Manufacturers - Safety equipment providers - Health & Safety Regulators - Maintenance Companies - Airline Safety Departments - Air Accident Investigators- Crew & Unions - Policy Makers- Press & Media - Aircraft Insurers - Leasing Companies - Scientists - Occupational Health Professionals - Academics & Researchers - Engineers Register Curt Lewis