Flight Safety Information - March 22, 2022 No.057 In This Issue : Crash: China Eastern B738 near Guangzhou on Mar 21st 2022, lost altitude and impacted terrain : Incident: Qatar A359 near Karachi on Mar 21st 2022, cargo fire : Wallets, IDs but no survivors found in China Eastern crash : FAA Official Testifies Former Boeing Pilot Lied About 737 MAX : Pilot Says Antonov Management Responsible For An-225 Demise : CAA probes Lufthansa and SAAT (South Africa) : Aircraft insurers brace for a deluge of Russia-related claims : MOSCOW AIRPORT FURLOUGHS STAFF AFTER SANCTIONS : China Eastern Crash and What You Don’t Know About 737 NG : Registrations open for the EAAP "Human Factors in Flight Safety” training course, Sitges (Barcelona), Spain, 25-29 April 2022 : ISASI 2022 - Brisbane Australia - Call for Papers : The Mattford Group's Negotiating Solutions® workshop : Position Available: Powerplant Analyst : Position Available: Configuration Control Manager Crash: China Eastern B738 near Guangzhou on Mar 21st 2022, lost altitude and impacted terrain A China Eastern Boeing 737-800, registration B-1791 performing flight MU-5735 from Kunming to Guangzhou (China) with 123 passengers and 9 crew on board, was enroute at 8900 meters/FL291 about 130nm west of Guangzhou nearing the top of descent at 14:20L (06:20Z) when the aircraft suddenly lost altitude and impacted ground about 119nm west of Guangzhou in mountaineous terrain. A search and rescue operation reached the crash site but found no survivors. China's Civil Aviation Authority (CAAC) confirmed the aircraft has crashed. Contact with the aircraft was lost in the Wuzhou region (about 120nm west of Guangzhou). The airline confirmed the crash and fatalities in a note to the stock exchanges (though not stating how many people had died in the crash). China's Civil Aviation Authority have opened an investigation into the crash and are estimated to hold a press conference during the day. The NTSB have appointed an accredited representative and have joined the investigation together with representatives of Boeing and engine manufacturer CFM. Mode-S data transmitted by the aircraft suggest the aircraft was enroute at 8900 meters/FL291 about 130nm west of Guangzhou at 14:20L (06:20Z) when the aircraft began a rapid descent, the last position from the transponder was received from position N23.34 E111.15 at 3200 feet MSL at 14:23L (06:23Z). VIDEO https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4f64be2f&opt=0 Incident: Qatar A359 near Karachi on Mar 21st 2022, cargo fire A Qatar Airlines Airbus A350-900, registration A7-ALZ performing flight QR-579 from Delhi (India) to Doha (Qatar) with 283 passengers and 12 crew, was enroute at FL400 about 160nm northnorthwest of Karachi (Pakistan) when the crew received a cargo smoke indication, turned around and diverted to Karachi for a safe landing on Karachi's runway 25L about 33 minutes later and stopped on the runway. A rapid disembarkation via mobile stairs followed, the passengers were bussed to the terminal. Emergency services subsequently found evidence of heat and fire in one of the cargo containers. The runway was closed for about 2.5 hours. A replacement A350-900 registration A7-ALK was dispatched to Karachi, resumed the flight as QR-3139 and reached Doha with a delay of about 9 hours. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 22:15 hours, then positioned to Doha and is still on the ground in Doha about 7 hours after landing there. Pakistan's Civil Aviation Authority/AAIB have opened an investigation into the occurrence. https://www.avherald.com/h?article=4f656f67&opt=0 Wallets, IDs but no survivors found in China Eastern crash WUZHOU, China (AP) — Mud-stained wallets. Bank cards. Official identity cards. Poignant reminders of 132 lives presumed lost were lined up by rescue workers scouring a remote Chinese mountainside Tuesday for the wreckage of a China Eastern flight that one day earlier inexplicably fell from the sky and burst into a huge fireball. No survivors have been found among the 123 passengers and nine crew members. Video clips posted by China's state media show small pieces of the Boeing 737-800 plane scattered over a wide forested area, some in green fields, others in burnt-out patches with raw earth exposed after fires burned in the trees. Each piece of debris has a number next to it, the larger ones marked off by police tape. As family members gathered at the destination and departure airports, what caused the plane to drop out of the sky shortly before it would have begun its descent to the southern China metropolis of Guangzhou remained a mystery. The search for the black boxes, which hold the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, would be difficult, the official Xinhua News Agency said, and involve drones and manual searching. The crash left a deep pit in the mountainside, Xinhua said, citing rescuers. Chen Weihao, who saw the falling plane while working on a farm, told the news agency it hit a gap in the mountain where nobody lived. “The plane looked to be in one piece when it nosedived. Within seconds, it crashed,” Chen said. China Eastern flight 5735 crashed outside the city of Wuzhou in the Guangxi region while flying from Kunming, the capital of the southwestern province of Yunnan, to Guangzhou, an industrial center not far from Hong Kong on China’s southeastern coast. It ignited a fire big enough to be seen on NASA satellite images before firefighters could extinguished it. No foreigners were on board the lost flight, the Foreign Ministry said, citing a preliminary review. Dinglong Culture, a Guangzhou company in both mining and TV and movie production, said in a statement to the Shenzhen stock exchange that its CFO, Fang Fang, was a passenger. Zhongxinghua, an accounting firm used by Dinglong, said that two of its employees were also on the flight. The crash site is surrounded on three sides by mountains and accessible only by foot and motorcycle on a steep dirt road in the semitropical Guangxi region, famed for some of China’s most spectacular scenery. Rain fell Tuesday afternoon as excavators dug out a path to make access easier, state broadcaster CCTV said. The steepness of the slope made the positioning of heavy equipment difficult. A base of operations was set up near the crash site with rescue vehicles, ambulances and an emergency power supply truck parked in the narrow space. Soldiers and rescue workers combed the charred crash site and surrounding heavily dense vegetation. Police restricted access, checking each vehicle entering Molang, a village near the crash site. Five people with swollen eyes walked out of the village, got into a car and left. Onlookers said they were relatives of the passengers. Family members gathered at Kunming and Guangzhou airports. People draped in pink blankets and slumped in massage chairs could be seen in a traveler rest area in the basement of the one in Kunming. Workers wheeled in mattresses and brought bagged meals. A security guard blocked an AP journalist from entering, saying that “interviews aren’t being accepted.” In Guangzhou, relatives were escorted to a reception center staffed by employees wearing full protective gear to guard against the coronavirus. At least five hotels with more than 700 rooms had been requisitioned in Wuzhou's Teng county for family members, Chinese media reported. Workers in hazmat suits set up a registration desk and administered COVID-19 tests at the entrance to one hotel, outside of Molang. A sign read, "The hotel is requisitioned for March 21 plane accident emergency use.” At another hotel, a group of women, some wearing vests with Red Cross markings, registered at a hotel desk set up outside. The nation's first fatal plane crash in more than a decade dominated China's news and social media. World leaders including Great Britain's Boris Johnson, India's Narendra Modi and Canada's Justin Trudeau posted condolences on Twitter. Boeing Chief Executive Dave Calhoun said that the company was deeply saddened by the news and had offered the full support of its technical experts to assist in the investigation. “The thoughts of all of us at Boeing are with the passengers and crew members ... as well as their families and loved ones,” he wrote in a message to Boeing employees. The plane was about an hour into its flight, at an altitude of 29,000 feet (8,840 meters), when it entered a steep, fast dive around 2:20 p.m., according to data from FlightRadar24.com. The plane plunged to 7,400 feet before briefly regaining about 1,200 feet in altitude, then dove again. The plane stopped transmitting data 96 seconds after starting to dive. The aircraft was delivered to the airline in June 2015 and had been flying for more than six years. Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport, where the flight was headed, is one of China’s main aviation hubs. It is the home base for China Southern Airlines. As the pandemic upended air travel, it rocketed past Beijing and Atlanta to claim the title of world’s busiest airport in 2020 — the most recent year for which annual data is available — handling more than 43 million passengers. Guangzhou is the capital of Guangdong province, home to export-driven factories making smartphones, toys, furniture and other goods. Its Auto City district has joint ventures operated by Toyota, Nissan and others. Kunming, the departure city which is 1,100 kilometers (680 miles) west, is the capital of Yunnan province, an agricultural, mining and tourism center that borders Southeast Asia. China Eastern, which is headquartered in Shanghai, has grounded all of its 737-800s, China’s Transport Ministry said. Aviation experts said it is unusual to ground an entire fleet of planes unless there is evidence of a problem with the model. The airline is one of China's three largest carriers with more than 600 planes, including 109 Boeing 737-800s. The grounding could further disrupt domestic air travel already curtailed because of the largest COVID-19 outbreak in China since the initial peak in early 2020. The Boeing 737-800 has been flying since 1998 and has an excellent safety record, said Hassan Shahidi, president of the Flight Safety Foundation. It is an earlier model than the 737 Max, which was grounded worldwide for nearly two years after deadly crashes in 2018 and 2019. Before Monday, the last fatal crash of a Chinese airliner occurred in August 2010, when an Embraer ERJ 190-100 operated by Henan Airlines hit the ground short of the runway in the northeastern city of Yichun and caught fire. It carried 96 people and 44 of them died. Investigators blamed pilot error. https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-media-no-survivors-found-015321557.html FAA Official Testifies Former Boeing Pilot Lied About 737 MAX • Stacey Klein, an FAA training specialist, said then-Boeing pilot Mark Forkner misled her about changes to a key flight-control system later blamed for two crashes • Two crashes in 2018 and 2019 involving Boeing’s 737 MAX claimed hundreds of lives and disrupted global aviation. FORT WORTH, Texas—A Federal Aviation Administration training specialist said a former Boeing Co. BA -3.59% pilot lied to her about how a 737 MAX flight-control system worked before two of the jets crashed three years ago. The former Boeing pilot, Mark Forkner, is on trial in Fort Worth, Texas, this week over four counts of wire fraud. Federal prosecutors say Mr. Forkner, who was the aircraft’s chief technical pilot during the aircraft’s development, deceived his FAA counterpart about the automated cockpit feature later blamed for sending the two jets into fatal nosedives. Stacey Klein, Mr. Forkner’s FAA counterpart, recounted how the then-Boeing pilot assured her multiple times that airline pilots wouldn’t encounter the flight-control system known as MCAS as he sought to win her approval to remove its mention from airplane manuals and training documents that carriers rely on. “He lied,” Ms. Klein said. Had she known that Boeing engineers had expanded MCAS’s authority to include low-speed, low-altitude conditions, she would have had to re-evaluate how much training the FAA needed to require for airline pilots. Mr. Forkner has pleaded not guilty. He claims federal prosecutors have targeted him as a scapegoat for the MAX crashes in 2018 and 2019, which claimed 346 lives and disrupted global aviation. Defense attorneys have noted Mr. Forkner isn’t an engineer and that many others were involved in the flight-control system’s design and certification. Ms. Klein is a key prosecution witness in the Justice Department’s case against Mr. Forkner, the sole person charged as the agency seeks to hold individuals accountable for corporate misdeeds. Boeing reached a $2.5 billion settlement to resolve its role in the criminal investigation. When Ms. Klein learned the flight-control system had been expanded after the first 737 MAX crash in Indonesia in late 2018, Ms. Klein said she was upset about her dealings with Mr. Forkner, whom she said she earlier met when he worked at the FAA years ago. “I was shocked, dismayed, sad, angry,” Ms. Klein said. “Because I trusted Mark.” She said it was Mr. Forkner’s “job to inform me of design changes” that could increase training requirements for the 737 MAX. As head of the FAA’s aircraft evaluation group for the 737 MAX, Ms. Klein’s job was to approve training requirements for pilots who fly the aircraft. Federal prosecutors allege Mr. Forkner deceived Ms. Klein as part of an effort to minimize training requirements for the new aircraft to help airlines avoid potentially expensive simulator training and help the airplane manufacturer make tens of millions of dollars. Ms. Klein said she felt Mr. Forkner was at times unprofessional when he disagreed with her about potential MAX training requirements. “I felt like he was a bully,” she said. Ashlee McFarlane, one of Mr. Forkner’s defense attorneys, pressed Ms. Klein under cross examination about missed opportunities to learn about key changes to MCAS, including four meetings she was invited to attend where other Boeing representatives laid out the information. “I’m not familiar with these meetings,” Ms. Klein said. Prosecutors have focused much of their case on Mr. Forkner’s 2016 chat messages about his experience with the MCAS flight-control system while in a simulator under development. Mr. Forkner told his colleague in a message: “So I basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly).” Ms. Klein said Mr. Forkner recounted the simulator experience to her but didn’t correct his assertion that the flight-control system only operated in high-speed conditions pilots wouldn’t encounter during a normal flight. “He said it went great,” Ms. Klein said of Mr. Forkner. “There were a few kinks to work out.” Mr. Forkner’s defense attorneys have said Mr. Forkner didn’t lie but was instead complaining about problems with the simulator and that Boeing engineers left him out of the loop on changes to the flight-control system. Ms. Klein, under cross examination, acknowledged “it is very common” for pilots like Mr. Forkner to experience such simulator problems. And she acknowledged that at times it appeared she had more information than Mr. Forkner about aspects of the MAX’s development. https://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-official-testifies-former-boeing-pilot-lied-about-737-max-11647909072 Pilot Says Antonov Management Responsible For An-225 Demise An An-225 pilot claims that management was advised by NATO to move the aircraft weeks before Russia's invasion. An An-225 pilot is speaking out about the destruction of what was the world's largest aircraft. Major Dmytro Antonov posted a video to YouTube on March 18th, accusing Antonov management of ignoring warnings from NATO regarding an impending invasion. Let's see what he has to say... To be absolutely clear, the pilot's surname is Antonov- the same name as the company that built and operated the An-225 and the subject of the pilot's allegations. As such, we will reference the An-225 pilot, Major Dmytro Antonov, as Maj. Antonov. Company leadership warned in January Picked up by Aviacionline, An-225 pilot Maj. Antonov took to his channel on YouTube to discuss why the aircraft wasn't moved out of Ukraine, to safer territory, in the days leading up to the Russian invasion. Translated and paraphrased in English from Russian, Dmytro Antonov states: "There was no decision to transfer the plane anywhere. You could do Rzeszów, you could do Leipzig. Why Leipzig? Because on January 26th, there was an appeal to management from the [NATO Support and Procurement Agency] via [Antonov Logistics (Germany)] for the relocation of all our aircraft. Flight personnel, personnel, spare parts, etc [could be transported] to Leipzig in light of a possible war. There was no answer to this inquiry...And as I said, there was no strong-willed decision to transfer [the aircraft] between February 15th and 23rd. The translation to English may be rough. However, for those who can understand Russian, the original video can be viewed below, with the pilot's discussion of the Mriya roughly 13 minutes in. Pilot receiving threats Maj. Antonov goes on to say that, after the warnings, Antonov's top management headed to Leipzig, Germany, two weeks before the war (mid-February) and raided the Antonov Logistics SALIS office rather than take action with the aircraft. The pilot alleges that this action was taken due to connections with Russia. Aviacionline notes that Maj. Antonov has received some threats from the company over his allegations. "Let them threaten. [They did] a little revenge, they blocked my phone. As long as I still have access to the Internet, everything is fine," he states. A 'cover-up' would make sense... Simple Flying has reached out to the Antonov company with a request for comment regarding the pilot's allegations. Without being able to independently verify the claims, it's an awkward and uncertain situation. However, given the fact that the US was warning the world about an impending invasion, it would have made a lot of sense to relocate the Mriya to safer territory. Indeed, during the early days of the invasion, and news of the An-225's destruction, many online were asking why the aircraft wasn't relocated- with some others calling the aircraft's demise 'fake news' (clearer imagery has since been released to confirm the aircraft's destruction). In late-February the Antonov An-225 was destroyed at Hostomel airport outside Kyiv. As such, if the pilot's allegations are true, it would make sense at this point for Antonov management to now remain quiet and fly under the proverbial radar. The fact that there was a warning nearly a month in advance would indeed be a very bad look for the company's leadership if they had chosen to ignore such advice. https://simpleflying.com/an-225-destruction-blame/ CAA probes Lufthansa and SAAT (South Africa) JOHANNESBURG - The Civil Aviation Authority has turned its attention to Comair's maintenance as Comair flights continue to experience technical problems. The two companies that conduct maintenance for Comair's aircraft -- Lufthansa Technik and SAA Technical -- are also under scrutiny by the Authority. Comair operates both British Airways and Kulula. Last week, the Aviation Authority lifted the company's air operator certificate after it was suspended for failing safety standards. Civil Aviation Authority spokesperson Phindiwe Gwebu says the outcome of that process will be announced soon. Source eNCA https://www.enca.com/business/caa-probes-lufthansa-and-saat Aircraft insurers brace for a deluge of Russia-related claims • Lessors of planes stuck in Russia since the onset of sanctions have warned insurers of possible claims. (Bloomberg) — Aircraft-leasing firms working to retrieve planes from Russia are set to collide with an aviation-insurance industry bracing for an unprecedented barrage of claims. Lessors of planes stuck in Russia since the onset of sanctions have warned insurers of possible claims to come if the jets aren’t returned. Insurers, meanwhile, are canceling some policies, including for war risk, and may challenge claims on coverage still in force, industry participants say. “The magnitude of potential loss here is staggering,” said Garrett Hanrahan, global head of aviation and space for insurance broker Marsh, a unit of Marsh McLennan. “This could potentially be the biggest aviation insurance loss in market history.” Both sides are trying to improve their positions after President Vladimir Putin allowed Russian airlines to keep aircraft until the end of their lease terms and re-register them in the country. Leasing firms seeking to repossess planes have until March 28 to cancel contracts under European Union sanctions and broader banking prohibitions. As the focus shifts to the insurance market, providers of coverage are trying to avoid being overloaded with claims. The standoff threatens firms up and down the insurance-market food chain. Foreign lessors had 509 aircraft rented to Russian operators as of March 16, according to aviation consultant IBA. That’s 14 planes less than the 523 plane tally on March 10. Some of the 14 planes were outside of Russia when sanctions were imposed and have since been returned to lessors, IBA said. Dublin-based AerCap Holdings NV, the world’s biggest leasing firm, had 142 of the original total, followed by SMBC Aviation Capital with 35 as of March 10, though it remains unclear exactly how many of the leased planes remain in Russia. Lloyd’s of London provides the vast majority of aviation coverage, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private information. Representatives for AerCap and SMBC Aviation declined to comment on whether they had sent any notices of claims. Lloyd’s of London declined to comment on the market’s exposure to potential claims. AerCap will comply with EU sanctions, it said late last month. SMBC Aviation terminated all its Russian leases, and had aircraft in Russia with a net book value of $1.7 billion as of February. Insurance question The Financial Times reported Thursday that Lloyd’s of London is expecting a “significant but manageable overall loss” with a final bill between $1 billion to $4 billion after reinsurance pays out, citing a person familiar with the matter. The exchange didn’t respond to a request for comment about the estimate. Russia’s action to hold onto aircraft that had their leases cancelled could actually help lessors with their insurance claims, Steven Udvar-Hazy, chairman of Air Lease Corp. said at a JPMorgan Chase & Co. conference on Wednesday. “It demonstrates the intent to confiscate, which is, I think, a critical aspect of our war risk insurance,” Udvar-Hazy said. Analysts at Credit Suisse Group AG said in a note on Thursday that there will be “significant debate” over whether primary insurance coverage will be effective. But secondary coverage held by lessors — which are contracts with the insurance company and unrelated to Russian entities — are likely to remain effective, the analysts led by Moshe Orenbuch said. Primary insurers receiving notices of possible claims may also turn to their reinsurers for payouts. Legal battles may be looming as firms squabble over what’s covered and what isn’t, said James Healy-Pratt, an aviation lawyer and partner at Keystone Law in London. “The issue with the leased planes in Russia will be a very complex one, as countries don’t normally seize large fleets of aircraft,” he said. “Whatever happens, the lessors will have to take a massive writedown in the value of their assets and so far, we haven’t seen any SEC filings from the lessors.” Healy-Pratt pointed to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, where Iraqi forces seized a number of commercial aircraft — fueling about two decades of litigation. “While not exactly parallel, the scale of the challenge ahead will be massive and I expect years of litigation between lessors, insurers and underwriters about who pays the bill,” he said. Legal battles The contentious situation has already spurred at least one lawsuit. Singapore-based lessor BOC Aviation Ltd. sued Russia’s AirBridgeCargo Airlines LLC this week over a Boeing Co. plane currently in Hong Kong. BOC Aviation alleges that cancellation of a reinsurance policy triggered a default under their lease agreement, allowing for repossession of the jet. “As a result of the canceled and invalidated insurance, BOCA terminated the leasing of the aircraft and exercised its contractual right to demand the immediate return of the aircraft with all necessary records,” BOC Aviation alleges in the lawsuit. “AirBridge, however, is refusing to recognize the termination of leasing of the aircraft and is refusing to return the records. It is instead demanding that BOCA authorize the aircraft to be flown from Hong Kong to Russia.” The insurance industry’s exposure is yet to be determined. If leasing companies can successfully retrieve all of their aircraft from Russia, any claims may go away, according to Marsh’s Hanrahan. Lloyd’s of London’s dominance in the market could also dissuade claims, as holders with cancelled policies refrain from suing the main provider of insurance coverage for fear of being shut out, the people familiar with the matter said. Lloyd’s of London, the world’s largest insurance exchange, said activities in Russia and Belarus represent less than 1% of its business. The exchange offers loss or damage coverage as well as liability policies and a specific type of “confiscation” insurance for aviation, two of the people familiar said. “This is a new challenge, and I think that we have to say to ourselves, ‘This is not going to be the last of these challenges,’” Hanrahan said. https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2022/03/21/aircraft-insurers-brace-for-a-deluge-of-russia-related-claims/?slreturn=20220222084636 MOSCOW AIRPORT FURLOUGHS STAFF AFTER SANCTIONS With sanctions severely limiting flights in and out of Russia, Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow has had to furlough one-fifth of its staff. Sheremetyevo Alexander S. Pushkin International Airport (UUEE) is Moscow’s largest passenger airport. But this wasn’t always the case. Prolonged efforts brought it into this position, allowing it to surpass Domodedovo Airport (UUDD) in terms of passenger numbers. These expansion efforts included rebuilding existing terminals and erecting several new ones. From March 15th, Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow closed two out of five of its current terminals, because of sanctions. Before the pandemic, the airport’s management actually had plans for a sixth terminal. Also from the 15th, the airport closed its third runway. This newer runway connects to the rest of the airport across a roadway bridge. It was only completed in 2019. SANCTIONS HIT MOSCOW AIRPORT The newest effects of the sanctions involve furloughs for one-fifth of the staff at the Moscow airport. These employees will continue receiving two-thirds of their wages. The sanctions are also affecting air carriers, with Ural Airlines announcing furloughs for some of its workforce. Ural is a privately-owned airline; it’s not clear how Aeroflot and its subsidiaries are handling the recent reduction in flights. The sanctions are interfering with plans to make Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow a hub between Europe and Asia. This is a role that multiple airports (and airlines) have wanted to play. We saw how Finnair wanted to make its base in Helsinki into such a hub. Unfortunately, for this plan to work efficiently, the airline would need to fly over Russia. So for now, it has had to put these plans on hold. Airlines from countries that have not imposed sanctions on Russia are still flying into Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow. However, some of these airlines have their own challenges, relating to the SWIFT payment system. This is because the airlines need alternative ways to pay for using Russia’s airspace. Additionally, some airlines may be facing insurance limitations when flying into Russia, or lessor-imposed restrictions. https://mentourpilot.com/moscow-airport-furloughs-staff-after-sanctions/ China Eastern Crash and What You Don’t Know About 737 NG News bulletins today related to the crash of China Eastern Flight 5735 include the disclaimer that the Boeing 737 that plunged to earth killing 132 people, is not the notorious 737 MAX. Most news consumers, indeed most air travelers, know at least a glimmer of the story of the MAX, a flawed Boeing product that produced two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019. They know less about the 737 NG. What remains practically a secret, is that the 737 NG was the subject of a decade-long series of court cases filed by Boeing whistleblowers who say the NGs are poorly constructed and at risk of in-flight breakups and other structural problems. It is too early to say what triggered Monday’s crash of a seven-year-old airplane on a flight from Kunming to Guangzhou, but an in-flight breakup is certainly on the list of possibilities. Determining that should not be difficult as the wreckage will be distributed rather than confined to the crash scene. The cause of an in-flight breakup – if triggered by a bomb, missile or fuel tank explosion, would not likely remain a mystery for long either. Among the other possibilities worth noting, however, is a particular problem associated with the NG, which makes up 17 percent of the passenger planes in service around the world. And that story comes from court documents in a legal case that is not pretty. Like the 737 MAX, it presents a troubling picture of the Federal Aviation Administration and its cozy relationship with Boeing. In 2005, Boeing workers alledged that the plane manufacturer accepted defective parts which resulted in shoddy assembly practices at the Boeing plant in Witchita, Kansas where 737 NGs were put together. Employees in Wichita were regularly receiving parts from California-based AHF Ducommun, that did not meet manufacturing specifications. With this new model of 737, the parts were to be produced with sophisticated computer machining to assure consistency and precision. What was showing up on the factory floor was neither precise nor consistent, according to the Boeing insiders and other documents admitted in the case brought against Boeing and Ducommun. The workers sued claiming the defective parts made Boeing’s newest iteration of the 737 not airworthy under FAA regulations. Ten years later, a Federal Judge dismissed the case, not on the facts presented by the whistleblowers, but because the FAA and not judges, has the technical expertise to determine “the impact of manufacturing on public safety.” Michael Dreikorn, who used to work for the FAA was an expert witness in the suit. He worried the quality issues could lead to in-flight breakups of the aircraft. There was also reason to believe four 737 NGs that came apart during hard landings fractured as a result of the bad parts. (Read more about that here.) “These are the same people involved in the 737 MAX,” he said of the FAA officials who failed to correct the problems reported on the NG. Ali Bahrami, who retired in June 2021 as the FAA’s associate administrator for safety, “was personally the individual who said no harm, no foul” in the NG case, Dreikorn said, “and there was a foul and there was harm.” While the 737 MAX was returned to service elsewhere in the world months ago, when last I checked, it was grounded considerably longer in China, which decided to rely on its own determination of the airplane’s safety. No MAX aircraft are flying in China even now. With 132 passengers dead, authorities announced the NG until more was known about what happened with Flight 5735. And it would not surprise me if China’s air safety investigators took a closer look at what the NG whistleblowers had to say. It could start, and so should you, by taking a look at this documentary produced and reported by journalist Tim Tate. Christine Negroni Author of The New York Times bestseller, The Crash Detectives, I am also a journalist, public speaker and broadcaster specializing in aviation and travel. https://christinenegroni.com/china-eastern-crash-and-what-you-dont-know-about-737-ng/ Registrations open for the EAAP "Human Factors in Flight Safety” training course, Sitges (Barcelona), Spain, 25-29 April 2022 Registrations are now open for the 2022 Initial Human Factors in Flight Safety training course, to be held on-site in the beautiful seaside town of Sitges, near Barcelona, from 25-29 April 2022, kindly hosted by Vueling. The 5-day training course will be delivered by the experienced team of Brent Hayward and Alan Hobbs, together with special guest presenter, clinical and health psychologist Catarina Cunha. The course will be conducted in a COVID-safe manner. The hotel training venue in Sitges has been selected with that in mind and conduct of the course will comply with all national and local government requirements and protocols regarding COVID-19 safety and event management. This may include requirements for providing proof of vaccination and/or negative COVID-19 test results as mandated locally at the time. Completion of this course is recognised by the European Association for Aviation Psychology (EAAP) as contributing towards the requirements for accreditation as an Aviation Psychologist or Human Factors Specialist. There are discounted registration fees for EAAP Members and a significant EARLY BIRD discount also applies for registrations received by 25 March 2022. A detailed course Information and Registration Brochure is available for download from the EAAP website: https://www.eaap.net/read/6055/initial-human-factors-in-flight-safety.html Those with any remaining questions about the course please contact Brent Hayward: brent@dedale.net.au ISASI 2022 Brisbane Australia Current Challenges for Aviation Safety Call for Papers ISASI 2022 will b e a fully interactive "hybrid” conference for delegates to meet either face to face at the Pullman Hotel King George Square Brisbane Australia or to register and participate “ on line August 30 to September 1 , 2022 The committee welcome s the offer of presentations that will address the challenges for contemporary aviation safety in the new normal including: · Recent accident/incident investigations. · Novel and new investigations techniques. · Data investigation and analysis. · Future technological developments for aviation safety. · Investigator training and contemporary selection criteria. · Wreckage recovery and analysis. · Developments in analysis and understanding of human performance with specific reference to pandemics. Abstracts should include the author’s current short CV and be sent to ISASI2022@isasi.org or if you have any questions pmayes@isasi.org April 20th Closing date for receipt of abstracts May 30th Presenters informed of successful selection and instructions for final papers issued July 20th Completed paper and power point presentation required Position Available: Powerplant Analyst Position Purpose: Researches and develops data to optimize Powerplant life management. Creates an overall life view and repair expectation tracking to optimize shop visits. Audits and validates shop visits to ensure financial sections of the Company have technical support. Essential Duties: · Audits engine shop maintenance and material technical data to identify/resolve issues prior to seeking reimbursement from code share partners. · Reviews and collects technical data to form the most optimized life management of the powerplants. · Assists the Finance and Accounting teams in assembling and validating all supporting data to facilitate the pass through process. · Reads and interprets technical documentation related to AMM, IPC, SRM, Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives, DER repairs, ETD documents and other OEM authorizations, MRB/ MTLM limitations for maintenance programs, Routine Job Cards, Non-Routine Discrepancies, and MEL/CDL/DMI/NEF activity. · Works with the engineering team as required to ensure life cycle management is followed. · Applies experience and/or knowledge of business analytics and powerplant maintenance to determine LLP best removal time frames. · Reviews, interprets, and applies contractual terms of maintenance agreements with various vendors and the pass through portions of agreements with airline partners. · Communicates with partners and internal teams associated with the process, responds to inquiries, resolves open items in a manner equitable for all organizations. · Performs other duties as assigned by the Manager of Powerplant Engineering. Required Skills, Education or Experience · Bachelor’s Degree (B.A./B.S.) in Aviation Maintenance or technology – emphasis on theory of powerplant operation and a minor in Business Analytics. · 2+ years of experience Line or Heavy Aircraft Maintenance experience. · Working knowledge of 14 CFR Parts 121, 145 and 25 in an engineering or technical services department. Position Available: Configuration Control Manager Position Summary: Based out of our headquarters in Indianapolis, this individual maintains the Service Bulletin (SB) configuration tracking list of the aircraft within the airline and leads the engineering meetings for SB evaluation. Coordinates the airlines Weight & Balance and Emergency Equipment programs. Primary Responsibilities: · Maintains database of Service Bulletin (SB) installation configurations. · Researches and develops data for monthly meetings on Service Bulletin implementation plans. · Maintains an up-to-date serial numbers list of aircraft operated at each airline. · Investigates and analyzes Service Bulletins pertaining to the aircraft. · Keeps current and advises management on new Airworthiness Directives (Ads) and SB's. · Oversees the airline’s Weight and Balance documentation processes. · Maintain the BEW and BOW for the fleet · Aides Engineering disciplines in evaluation of modifications and configuration control. · Maintains and updates the Emergency Equipment Manual. · Assists in the preparation of Engineering documents, manual supplements, Inspection Program modifications and associated paperwork related to various aircraft systems and components. · Provides technical assistance to various departments and/or personnel to facilitate the proper evaluation of modification orders. Must-Have Skills and Experience: · Associate's degree in Aviation/Aerospace/Related technical field, OR equivalent combination of professional experience. · 3+ years of experience in 14 CFR Parts 121 Engineering and/or Technical Service departments. · FAA Airframe and Powerplant license · OR have 5+ years of reliability or technical services experience on different types of large airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats with an air carrier. · Advanced Microsoft Office skills (Excel and Access). Preferred Experience: · 5+ years of Aircraft Acquisition/Lease Support experience on different types of large airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats with an air carrier. · A thorough understanding and working knowledge of all appropriate maintenance and airworthiness requirements of 14 CFR as well as an understanding of Operations Specifications D074, D072 and Component Analysis MSG-3. · Bachelor's degrees (B.A./B.S.) in Aviation Maintenance or related field. WORK ENVIRONMENT · Typically not exposed to extreme environmental conditions. · Able to work nights, evenings, weekends and holidays to support 24 hour operations. TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS · Travel up to 25% of the time, including overnight. APPLY HERE GRADUATE SURVEY Greetings fellow aviation professionals, My name is Mark Patrick Collins and I am a Ph.D student at Capitol Technology University. I am conducting a survey for my dissertation and would like your input. The aim of my research is to investigate the requirements for large unmanned cargo aircraft (LUCA) operations and to evaluate the anticipated needs of the FAA to support the integration of LUCA airline flights in the National Airspace Systems (NAS). This survey should not take longer than 15 minutes to complete. Click the link below to start the survey. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JWH3HST Thank you for your participation! Mark Patrick Collins Ph.D. Student Capital Technology University 11301 Springfield Road Laurel, MD 20708 563-663-7462 mpcollins@captechu.edu Curt Lewis