Flight Safety Information - September 2, 2022 No.189 In This Issue : Accident: PSA CRJ7 at Buffalo on Sep 28th 2022, TCAS RA maneouver injures two flight attendants : Accident: American A321 at Providence on Sep 28th 2022, loose food cart : Incident: Serbia AT72 near Budapest on Sep 23rd 2022, electrical smoke in cockpit : In a dangerous trend, aircraft in Hawaii are increasingly being targeted with laser lights : The “737 MAX is as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies”— Boeing settles antifraud charges with SEC : Malaysia Airlines to return A380s to Airbus by 2023 : Russia plans to build 1,000 aircraft by 2030, using local parts : Air France Relaunches All-In Pilot Training Program : The U.S. Plan To Power 100% Of Its Flights With Renewable Jet Fuel : Supersonic jet would fly from NYC to London in just 80 minutes : Position Available: Flight Operations Quality Assurance Analyst : GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Accident: PSA CRJ7 at Buffalo on Sep 28th 2022, TCAS RA maneouver injures two flight attendants A PSA Airlines Canadair CRJ-700 on behalf of American Airlines, registration N519AE performing flight AA-5647 from Philadelphia,PA to Buffalo,NY (USA), was on approach to Buffalo when approach queried the crew about the extent of injuries of the flight attendants. The crew responded their ankles were hurt. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on Buffalo's runway 32. Two flight attendants received medical attention. The FAA reported: "AIRCRAFT MANEUVERED DUE TO A TCAS RA INJURYING TWO FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, BUFFALO, NY." and rated the injuries minor. https://avherald.com/h?article=4fef9da1&opt=0 Accident: American A321 at Providence on Sep 28th 2022, loose food cart An American Airlines Airbus A321-200, registration N172US performing flight AA-2566 from Charlotte,NC to Providence,RI (USA), landed on Providence's runway 23 when a food cart became loose and hit a passenger. The aircraft taxied to the apron. The FAA reported: "AIRCRAFT LANDED AND A FOOD CART BECAME LOOSE AND STRUCK A PASSENGER IN THE HEAD, PROVIDENCE, RI." rating the injury of the passenger as minor. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 14 hours, then positioned back to Charlotte. https://avherald.com/h?article=4fef9342&opt=0 Incident: Serbia AT72 near Budapest on Sep 23rd 2022, electrical smoke in cockpit An Air Serbia Avions de Transport Regional ATR-72-212A, registration YU-ALY performing flight JU-601 from Vienna (Austria) to Belgrade (Serbia), was climbing through about FL160 out of Vienna's runway 29 already in Hungarian Airspace when the crew reported smoke in the cockpit and decided to divert to Budapest (Hungary). On approach to Budapest the crew advised no emergency services were needed. The aircraft landed safely on Budapest's runway 13R about 25 minutes after stopping the climb. Hungary's KBSZ reported the crew reported electrical smoke in the cockpit and diverted to Budapest. There were no injuries. The KBSZ opened an investigation into the serious incident. https://avherald.com/h?article=4fef8c1e&opt=0 In a dangerous trend, aircraft in Hawaii are increasingly being targeted with laser lights It’s a serious crime that’s been on the rise, especially in Honolulu. HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) - An investigation has been launched into a potentially deadly prank. Officers were dispatched to Sand Island on Wednesday night in search of a suspect after reports an aircraft hit was hit by a laser strike. It’s a serious crime that’s been on the rise, especially in Honolulu. Aviation officials confirm there are more laser strikes happening in Hawaii per capita than anywhere else in the country. The most recent incident was reported just after 10 p.m. Wednesday. That’s when officials say a Delta Airlines flight bound for Seattle was reportedly illuminated by a green laser during take off from Honolulu’s airport. FAA: Hawaii has the nation’s highest per capita incidence of laser strikes at pilots “People have to understand how serious this is,” said Peter Forman, aviation expert. Forman said not only can the bright light emitted from a laser permanently damage the pilot’s eyes, it can also cause temporary blindness. “Take off and landing is the most critical time,” Forman said. “You could theoretically cause an accident and lose hundreds of lives.” While no one was hurt in Wednesday night’s incident, officials say it’s a dangerous prank that’s on the rise. Last year, the Federal Aviation Administration received 9,723 laser strike reports from pilots nationwide. That’s the highest number ever recorded. In Hawaii, data shows there have been 99 reported laser incidents between January and August of this year. While several of those have happened in Lihue and Kahului, the vast majority occurred in Honolulu. “If someone takes a picture from the airplane of that laser light they can pinpoint exactly where it was,” Forman said. Records show the suspect involved in this latest incident was believed to be at Sand Island State Park. Officers were dispatched to the area but no arrests were made. Pointing a laser at an aircraft is a federal crime that could land you in prison for up to five years. https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/09/30/dangerous-trend-aircraft-hawaii-are-increasingly-being-targeted-with-laser-lights/ The “737 MAX is as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies”— Boeing settles antifraud charges with SEC In a kind of sad coda to the litany of claims, charges, investigations and litigation surrounding the tragic crashes in 2018 and 2019 of two Boeing 737 MAX airplanes and the heartbreaking deaths of 346 passengers, the SEC announced last week, as discussed in this Order, that the Boeing Company had agreed to pay $200 million to settle charges that it made materially misleading statements following the crashes, including statements assuring the public that the 737 MAX airplane was “as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies.” (As discussed in this order, the CEO will pay $1 million to settle charges.) Of course, that settlement pales against the $2.5 billion settlement agreed on last year with Department of Justice to resolve a criminal charge related to a conspiracy to defraud the FAA in connection with the FAA’s evaluation of the Boeing’s 737 MAX airplane. Also last year, as reported by the NYT, Boeing’s directors reached a $237.5 million settlement of Caremark claims filed in Delaware, which asserted that, as a result of the directors’ “complete failure to establish a reporting system for airplane safety,” and “their turning a blind eye to a red flag representing airplane safety problems,” the board consciously breached its fiduciary duty and violated corporate responsibilities and, as a result, should bear some responsibility for Boeing’s losses. (For a discussion of that case, see this PubCo post.) According to SEC Chair Gary Gensler, “[t]here are no words to describe the tragic loss of life brought about by these two airplane crashes….In times of crisis and tragedy, it is especially important that public companies and executives provide full, fair, and truthful disclosures to the markets. The Boeing Company and its former CEO, Dennis Muilenburg, failed in this most basic obligation. They misled investors by providing assurances about the safety of the 737 MAX, despite knowing about serious safety concerns. The SEC remains committed to rooting out misconduct when public companies and their executives fail to fulfill their fundamental obligations to the investing public.” How do these things happen? The facts of the Boeing case may be instructive. Background. According to the Boeing Order, the 737 MAX was designed in 2011 after Boeing “faced intense competition from one of its rival commercial airplane manufacturers.” The plane quickly “became the best-selling plane in Boeing’s history.” Although the plane was based on the design of its predecessor, changes in the design altered the aerodynamics of the 737 MAX, causing the plane to pitch up. To address that issue, Boeing introduced a computerized control, MCAS, which was designed to operate only at high speeds and would adjust the plane downward when it pitched up. Because the 737 MAX was based on the design of another plane, Boeing took the position with the FAA that pilots needed “only a short computer-based training (‘CBT’) course, as opposed to more extensive, simulator-based training.” The use of CBT-only was important for sales and even guaranteed in some cases. In advocating for CBT to the FAA, two senior Boeing technical employees presented MCAS to the FAA “as a feature that could only activate in a very specific, high-speed scenario that was outside the normal flight envelope and therefore unlikely to ever be encountered by a commercial pilot.” On that basis, among other things, the FAA provisionally accepted Boeing’s proposal of CBT-only and the omission of MCAS from the differences training and flight manuals. However, Boeing learned that the plane pitched up at even lower speeds than originally anticipated. As a result, following, and contrary to, the representations made by the two Boeing employees to the FAA, Boeing widened the speed range within which MCAS could operate to include speeds at which a commercial flight would regularly travel. The SEC alleged that these two Boeing employees responsible for communicating with the FAA “understood, as evidenced by internal emails, that the FAA’s provisional determination was contingent on there being ‘no significant systems changes to the airplane,’ and that the subsequent disclosure of additional differences to the FAA-AEG ‘would be a huge threat to that differences training determination.’” When the two employees later learned that MCAS was in fact operating at lower speeds and “running rampant in the sim[ulator],” one of the employees acknowledged in an “electronic chat” that he had “basically lied to the regulators (unknowingly).” But the employees did not advise the FAA of the change in the operational speed range of MCAS, and, according to the Order, effectively doubled down on the misstatement by reminding the FAA “to delete any references to MCAS from the FSB Report, saying ‘Flight Controls: Delete MCAS, recall we decided we weren’t going to cover it in the [manuals] or the CBT … since it’s way outside the normal operating envelope.’” Accordingly, “MCAS was not described in the 737 MAX flight manuals or pilot training materials, and was not part of the required differences training for pilots transitioning to the 737 MAX when the 737 MAX entered into service in mid-2017.” The misleading statements that were the subject of the SEC charges were included in a press release following the first crash of the Lion Air 737 MAX in 2018 and in an analyst call and press conference following the second crash in 2019, this time of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX. The first crash and related November press release. The first crash of the Lion Air plane occurred in October 2018. According to the Order, investigators identified as a cause of the crash “repeated unintended activations of MCAS” that were triggered by erroneous data from a malfunctioning sensor. In November 2018, Boeing’s internal Safety Review Board determined that the “high crew workload” required to address “repeated unintended MCAS activation,” together with the “limited amount of time a crew might have to do so before the airplane became unrecoverable,” created an “‘airplane safety issue’ that required remediation.” In the interim, Boeing and the FAA directed pilots, in the event of an “uncommanded nose-down movement,” to follow the procedures in the flight manuals for a similar type of malfunction. In mid-November, Boeing engineers concluded that MCAS should be redesigned, but that the fleet could continue to operate in the meantime. The FAA reached similar conclusions, but with a much shorter timeline for redesign. In mid-November, according to the Order, the CEO and other senior executives were advised of the SRB’s conclusions, and, at the same time, Boeing’s communications team began preparing a press release. Early versions of the press release “generally confirmed the plane’s safety”; some versions “also noted that Boeing was working with the FAA to ‘expedite the development and certification of a flight control software update’ for MCAS.” During this period, Boeing was the subject of extensive negative publicity, including “allegations that Boeing had withheld information from pilots, airlines, regulators and the general public regarding MCAS.” By November 20, the stock price had fallen over 11%. The CEO complained “in an email that ‘[w]e are spending too much time playing defense… [we] need to start playing some offense.’” After reviewing a draft of the NTSB’s preliminary report on the accident investigation, the CEO directed that the draft press release be modified to reflect some of the facts described in the NTSB report and also “suggested removing discussion of the planned MCAS software redesign from the Draft Press Release.” The press release was approved and issued on November 27. According to the Order, the November press release highlighted facts from the NTSB report “suggesting that pilot error and poor airplane maintenance by Lion Air had contributed to the crash. The November 2018 Press Release did not mention that the SRB had identified an ongoing ‘airplane safety issue’ associated with MCAS or the planned software redesign—indeed, it did not mention MCAS at all. The final November 2018 Press Release also contained the statement: ‘As our customers and their passengers continue to fly the 737 MAX to hundreds of destinations around the world every day, they have our assurance that the 737 MAX is as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies.’” Although Boeing had provided drafts to the FAA and NTSB, it wasn’t until after the press release was issued that a senior official at the NTSB complained to Boeing that the press release was “not appropriate” and omitted certain facts and highlighted others to lead the reader to Boeing’s analytical conclusion. After the issuance of the press release, Boeing’s stock price increased 4.8%. In the Order, the SEC charged that Boeing failed to exercise reasonable care in connection with the November press release: the release was misleading under the circumstances, especially the statement that “the 737 MAX is as safe as any airplane that has ever flown the skies,” in the absence of “any discussion of an ‘airplane safety issue’ that required remediation by fixing the MCAS software.” A reasonable investor would have considered these statements and omissions to be material, the SEC contended. Boeing’s certification compliance review, the second crash and April statements. Beginning in late November, Boeing also undertook a compliance review of the 737 MAX certification process focusing on MCAS. The review concluded that the certification process was compliant with FAA regulations, but identified several documentation gaps and inconsistencies, including the absence of documentation of any “supporting rationale for the decision to remove MCAS from the differences training and flight manuals.” According to the SEC, the compliance review team was not aware of the confessional electronic employee chat, and these gaps in documentation raised the question of whether the FAA knew about and was able to evaluate the expansion of MCAS to operate at slower speeds. When the DOJ also began an investigation into the certification process, Boeing’s legal department uncovered the employee chat and advised the CEO, who viewed it as “concerning.” The SEC alleged that the documentation issues and the chat raised issues about the adequacy of disclosures to the FAA and omissions from the manuals. The second crash occurred in March 2019. Investigations again determined that the accident involved “repeated unintended activations of MCAS” triggered by faulty software data. The FAA grounded the 737 MAX fleet (which lasted for over 20 months). The stock price fell. On an April earnings call, when asked how the problems with MCAS slipped detection by Boeing and the FAA, the CEO denied that there was a “technical slip or gap here…. [T]here was no surprise or gap or unknown here or something that somehow slipped through a certification process. Quite the opposite. We know exactly how the airplane was designed. We know exactly how it was certified. We have taken the time to understand that…” The CEO made similar statements during a press conference at a later point. The SEC charged that the April 2019 statements were misleading under the circumstances, and would have been considered material by a reasonable investor, absent any discussion of the questions raised by the discovery of the employee chat and the adequacy of Boeing’s disclosures to the FAA found in the certification compliance review. Accordingly, the SEC charged that Boeing failed to exercise reasonable care in connection with the April 2019 statements. The Order alleged that, when Boeing sold debt securities on multiple occasions in 2019, it did not modify any of the statements in the press release or modify any of the April statements. The SEC charged that Boeing and the CEO each violated Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, which can be based on negligence. The SEC imposed a civil penalty of $200 million on Boeing and of $1 million on the CEO. According to Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, Boeing and the CEO “put profits over people by misleading investors about the safety of the 737 MAX all in an effort to rehabilitate Boeing’s image following two tragic accidents that resulted in the loss of 346 lives and incalculable grief to so many families….But public companies and their executives must provide accurate and complete information when they make disclosures to investors, no matter the circumstances. When they don’t, we will hold them accountable, as we did here.” According to the NYT, in a statement, “Boeing said that it had improved ‘safety processes and oversight of safety issues’ since the crashes and that the settlement was part of a ‘broader effort to responsibly resolve outstanding legal matters’ related to the Max. ‘We will never forget those lost on Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, and we have made broad and deep changes across our company in response to those accidents,’ Boeing said.” https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-737-max-is-as-safe-as-any-airplane-7680917/ Malaysia Airlines to return A380s to Airbus by 2023 Malaysia Aviation Group (MAG), the parent company of Malaysia Airlines (MH, Kuala Lumpur Int'l), is returning its six inactive A380-800s to Airbus in a deal reportedly reached during recent negotiations to acquire twenty A330-900Ns. The first of the A380s - 9M-MNA (msn 78) - only arrived at the airline in 2012. Collectively, they were deployed on select routes to Europe, Australia, and within Asia. Malaysia Airlines parked its A380s in 2020 at the start of the pandemic. In July 2021, the airline issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) soliciting bids for the sale of the six planes but attracted no serious interest. In mid-August 2022, MAG ordered twenty A330neo jets on behalf of Malaysia Airlines. A total of 10 planes will be directly purchased from Airbus with a back-to-back sale/lease-back arrangement with Avolon, while the remaining 10 will be leased directly from Avolon. When the deal was announced, there was no mention of the fine print facilitating the A380s return. According to the ch-aviation fleets advanced module, all six Malaysia Airlines A380s are inactive and stored at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. "The plan is for Airbus to take back all the aircraft by the end of this year. It's up to them what they want to do with the aircraft." an airline source told Malaysia's New Straits Times, adding that discussions about precise return dates and where the A380s would be sent are ongoing. In a statement provided to ch-aviation, a Malaysia Airlines spokesperson said that "Malaysia Aviation Group plans to retire and exit A380 by the end of 2022. However, the terms related to the deal with Airbus remain confidential." Airbus also declined to provide further details, citing confidentiality. https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/119973-malaysia-airlines-to-return-a380s-to-airbus-by-2023 Russia plans to build 1,000 aircraft by 2030, using local parts Western sanctions mean that Airbus and Boeing will neither deliver new planes nor spares in the future. The Russian aviation industry has decided to work alone and produce 1,000 aircraft before the end of the decade as it aims to end its reliance on foreign aircraft manufacturers like Airbus and Boeing, Reuters has reported. Industry experts see this as an indication that Russia's relations with the West are unlikely to thaw in the near future. In the wake of Russian aggression in Ukraine, the Western nations responded by putting in place tough sanctions that were meant to effectively kill the aerospace industry in the former Soviet country. Even though Russia is looked at as a major player in the aerospace industry, its domestic market is dominated by the likes of Airbus and Boeing. The two airplane manufacturers enjoy a 95 percent market share in the country. In March, Interesting Engineering reported that Russia has quickly enacted laws that allowed these planes to fly and obtain airworthiness certificates locally too. However, as the conflict has prolonged, these measures are falling short and Russia needs a long-term plan to keep planes in the air. Russia's ambitious goal of self-reliance Under Vladimir Putin, the Russian aerospace industry has found new vigor after state-owned aerospace corporation, Rostec, which was founded in 2007. Now, Russia's only manufacturer of civil aircraft has decided that it will cater to all of the industry's needs, and the foreign-made aircraft will drop out of the fleet of Russian airlines. In responses sent to Reuters, the corporation said that it does not see Airbus and Boeing planes being delivered to Russia in the future and has embarked on a journey to build new aircraft with locally made parts. Rostec will begin this process by substituting imported parts such as the Pratt & Whitney engines on the medium-haul MS-21 planes. It will also make 20 new aircraft every year of its regional jet Superjet-new from 2024. Between now and 2030, Rostec plans to make 142 Superjet News, 270 MS-21s, 70 turboprop Il-114, 70 medium-haul Tu-214 aircraft as well as 12 wide-body jets, Il-96. How is the Chinese experiment going? The Russian move echoes the Chinese decision to compete with the Airbus A320 and Boeing's 737 Max aircraft with its homegrown C919, which was taken without the pressure of sanctions. China took this step 14 years ago and it was only earlier this month that the aircraft inched closer to certification. The aircraft is assembled in China but relies heavily on the West for components such as avionics as well as engines, a Reuters report said. While this single-aisle aircraft could address Chinese aviation needs in the coming decades, for the country to be truly self-reliant, it needs to substitute the components with locally made ones, a move that is expected to take at least a decade and many billion dollars, experts told Reuters. The Chinese experience provides a glimpse of how tough the Russian plan will be to execute in the timeframe it has imposed on itself. Experts told Business Insider that even after spending huge amounts of resources, Russia could end up using second-grade technology simply because the available best technology remained out of reach. https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/russia-build-1000-aircraft-2030-local-parts Air France Relaunches All-In Pilot Training Program Air France has relaunched its cadet pilot program and it’s a pretty straightforward deal for those who make the cut and the subsequent cuts. After what the airline calls a “rigorous selection process,” prospective candidates are offered an intense two-year training program that will end with them in the right seat of an Air France A320 or Transavia Boeing 737. There are periodic performance reviews. Air France pays the whole bill, but candidates must agree to fly for the company for a period of time and must have a university degree to qualify. Like most airlines, Air France is trying to attract underrepresented groups to the job. It noted that while only 9 percent of its pilots are women, 13 percent of the candidates in the first cadet intake in 2019 were female. “The cadet programme encourages women to access technical professions and illustrates Air France’s commitment to equal employment opportunities.” Applications are being taken here from Oct. 15 to Nov. 22. The cadet program was launched in 2019 but suspended by the pandemic. Air France is also hiring experienced pilots. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air-france-relaunches-all-in-pilot-training-program/ The U.S. Plan To Power 100% Of Its Flights With Renewable Jet Fuel Renewable jet fuel currently accounts for only 0.1 percent of aviation fuel, a percentage that needs to increase to 5 percent by 2030 according to the IEA’s estimates. To achieve the necessary growth in renewable jet fuel, costs will have to fall, governments will have to offer incentives for switching to it, and greater diversification of feedstocks is required. The U.S. Department of Energy has released a roadmap that outlines the necessary steps to meet 100 percent of domestic aviation fuel demand with sustainable fuel by 2050. Several world powers are launching renewable jet fuel initiatives in the race to be the first to provide a greener way to fly. With strict decarbonization policies being introduced by governments around the globe, several airlines are looking to decarbonize, as well as become more competitive in response to mounting public pressure to be more environmentally friendly. But when will airlines be able to deliver on renewable jet fuel promises? Renewable jet fuel, also known as aviation biofuels and biojet kerosene, currently accounts for 0.1 percent of aviation fuel. Most biofuels are made from conventional feedstocks such as sugar cane, corn, and soybeans. HEFA biojet kerosene is also made from vegetable oils and waste oils. To support net-zero aims, this percentage needs to increase to 5 percent by 2030, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA). To achieve this, the cost of biojet fuel will need to be reduced to compete with lower-cost fossil jet fuel, governments must also introduce policies supporting the switch and offer incentives to aviation companies, and there must be a greater diversification of feedstocks, according to the IEA. Switching dependence from conventional feedstocks to advanced feedstocks produced from wastes, residues, and dedicated crops would help shift reliance on food supplies and create greater diversification in biofuel production. This month, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) released a roadmap on how to achieve carbon-neutral aviation emissions. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge Roadmap outlines steps to meet 100 percent of the domestic aviation fuel demand with sustainable fuel by 2050. The roadmap offers a government-wide strategy for the development of technologies supporting the production of sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs). The U.S. Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Aviation Administration will be working in partnership to enhance technological innovation in the sector and help the U.S. to establish itself as a SAF global market leader, supporting the country’s net-zero aims. U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm explains, “From field to flight, this data-driven technology strategy will help guide America’s scientists and industry to chart our course to clean skies.” She added, “Not only is Sustainable Aviation Fuel critical to decarbonising the airline industry and reaching our climate goals, but this plan will help American companies corner the market on a valuable emerging industry.” At present, the U.S. commercial aviation industry contributes around 2 percent of the country’s CO2 emissions, which demonstrates the impact that a switch to SAFs would have on emissions. The DoE emphasizes that SAFs can be produced using biomass, and the U.S. has the potential to make 50-60 billion gallons of low-carbon fuels a year from renewable and waste resources. Europe has taken similar steps by launching its ReFuelEU Aviation initiative as part of its fit for 55 package in 2021. The policy puts forward several proposals to develop the SAF market including obligating fuel suppliers to distribute SAF when supplying fuel at EU airports to enhance SAF uptake by airlines and reduce aviation-related emissions. The initiative also ensures that all flights leaving from larger E.U. airports are carrying a minimum amount of SAF. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the E.U.’s aviation regulatory organization, is supporting the SAF development and expects the adoption of jet biofuels will help Europe to become the first climate-neutral continent by 2050. The European Commission has tasked the EASA to play an active role in the ReFuelEU Aviation legislative proposal to increase both the supply and demand for SAF in the region. However, the E.U. initiative has attracted criticism this month for potentially leading to a rise in greenhouse gas emissions. A recent report from the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), a green mobility NGO, suggests that lawmakers should only permit the use of feedstocks included in Annex IX of the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive. The concern is that the expansion of feedstocks used for jet biofuel production could lead to higher emissions as well as drive up food prices. Chelsea Baldino, one of the report’s authors, stated “Parliament’s efforts to exclude some problematic feedstocks, namely intermediate crops, palm and soy-derived products, and soapstock and its derivatives, would be a step towards improving the climate impact of Europe’s jet fuel. Meanwhile, private aviation companies are working on developing their own renewable fuels. American Airlines (AA) completed a deal this summer with the biofuel company Gevo to buy 500 million gallons of sustainable airline fuel (SAF) over five years. AA hopes to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and reported using over 1 million gallons of sustainable aviation fuel last year. The CEO of Airbus, Guillaume Faury, also addressed the switch stating: “Probably in the long run — in many decades — we will find a very optimised way of sustainable energy but in the transition, the fast way is to use the SAF, and they are available now.” While governments and regional bodies around the world are putting policies into place to support the development of sustainable aviation fuels, airlines are also battling it out to increase their use of SAFs and cut emissions. Greater regulatory support will likely help airlines around the globe develop SAF production and encourage airlines to switch to SAFs. https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Biofuels/The-US-Plan-To-Power-100-Of-Its-Flights-With-Renewable-Jet-Fuel.html Supersonic jet would fly from NYC to London in just 80 minutes A newly designed supersonic jet would be able to fly passengers from New York City to London in just 80 minutes. Dubbed the Hyper Sting, the conceptual plane would be nearly twice as large and travel twice as fast as the world’s last commercial supersonic jet, Concorde, which was retired in 2003. The Hyper Sting, at 328 feet long with a 168-foot wingspan, would dart up to 170 passengers across the Atlantic and beyond at speeds of 2,486mph — more than three times the speed of sound. “Concorde was a brilliant piece of machinery, a noble experiment, but it put too many emissions in the environment, too much noise into our communities, and was too expensive to operate,” the Spanish designer of the craft, Oscar Viñals, told The U.S. Sun. Two ramjet engines powered by a small nuclear reactor would propel the jet to its incredible speeds. It would additionally require the use of a cold-fusion nuclear reactor, which to date is still a theoretical concept, The Sun reported. The jet would be powered by two ramjet engines and a small nuclear reactor. The last supersonic jet was decommissioned in 2003. Oscar Viñals is no stranger to high-speed aircraft, having designed several in the past. The "Hyper Sting" would be nearly 2 times larger than the Concorde. “A new era of supersonic flight might be just around the corner, but there are challenges to overcome when it comes to flying faster than the speed of sound,” Viñals said. Viñals is also behind the designs of other large-scale, high-speed flight projects, including the Sky Whale and Big Bird. He decided to scale back his massive plane designs with the Hyper Sting and instead focus on designing a high-speed jet that could whizzing through the air in the near future. “Today, there are some projects for a new era of supersonic flights from different private and public initiatives, some of those are well underway and could become in a few years a real concept.” https://nypost.com/2022/09/30/supersonic-jet-hyper-sting-would-fly-from-nyc-to-london-in-just-80-minutes/ Position Available: Flight Operations Quality Assurance Analyst Indianapolis, IN US ID JR-003892 Category Flight Operations Quality Assurance Analyst Schedule Full time POSITION PURPOSE Processes day-to-day raw data using Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) and program Ground Data Replay Analysis System (GDRAS). Creates weekly and monthly deliverables in addition to working with Gatekeepers and other members of FOQA and FOQA Management Team (FMT). ESSENTIAL DUTIES To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. Reasonable accommodation may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. · Supports the FOQA Program Manager with daily administration of the FOQA efforts to ensure analysis of flight data for improved flight safety. · Oversees data collection process of aircraft fleet in conjunction with Maintenance and Engineering. · Performs data analysis, root cause analysis, and determines corrective actions of digital flight data to determine adverse events for trends in flight and maintenance operations. · Coordinates, develops, verifies and validates aircraft specific event definitions. · Prepares flight operations trending analysis charts and reports. · Compiles and presents FOQA data summaries for use by senior management, regulators, pilots, and union officials. · Performs specialized studies and fulfills special data requests. · Creates safety and FOQA department publications. · Prepares reports, presentations, and statistical data required to keep the FOQA community informed. · Reviews corrective action responses to inspections and internal evaluations findings for adequacy. · Maintains FOQA database, write database queries, program new FOQA events, and manages documentation supporting these functions. · Communicates with other airlines FOQA departments, governmental and academic institutions regarding FOQA. · Performs other duties as assigned. REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability necessary to perform this job. EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE. · Bachelor’s degree in aviation, flight technology, engineering, or related area or a combination of education and experience. · Holds Commercial Pilot Certificate · Basic understanding of aircraft systems and/or Part 121 aviation operations. · Previous work experience in quality control, maintenance, operations, safety or a combination of these areas (preferably in 14CFR Part 121 air carrier operations). · Previous experience maintaining and enhancing corporate safety standards and safe operation practices. · Extensive working knowledge of Microsoft Office Programs, including spreadsheet and database applications. · Strong work ethic, ability to work in a fast-paced environment and a positive attitude toward teamwork. PREFERRED EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE · At least 3 years related experience. · Additional certifications: Dispatch, Airframe and Powerplant and/or ATP license. · Basic computer programming and statistical methods experience preferred. · Prior experience with Sagem AGS or equivalent GDRAS platforms is preferred. LANGUAGE SKILLS Ability to read, analyze, and interpret general business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures, or governmental regulations. Ability to write reports, business correspondence, and procedure manuals. Ability to effectively present information and respond to questions from groups of managers, clients, customers, and the general public. REASONING/PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY Ability to define problems, collect data, establish facts, and draw valid conclusions. Ability to interpret an extensive variety of technical instructions in mathematical or diagram form and deal with several abstract and concrete variables. Proven project management and analytical skills. Ability to handle numerous projects at one time and meet deadlines. Self-motivated and able to work with minimal supervision in support of the Safety Department. DECISION MAKING Makes day to day decisions used to support strategic direction. Decisions often require some thought and are somewhat structured. Decisions tend to be short term and usually moderate cost. PHYSICAL DEMANDS The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an associate to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Able to move about the work environment. Frequently required to stand, walk, sit, talk and hear. WORK ENVIRONMENT The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an associate encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Typically not exposed to extreme environmental conditions. TRAVEL REQUIREMENTS Travel up to 10% of the time, including overnight stays. APPLY HERE GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Dear Pilots and Flight Attendants, Did you know that the difference between a 14-hour flight time and an 18-hour flight time is 28%, which means 28% more exposure by occupants to the cabin environment and other aircraft influences. Keeping this in mind, I am working on a new research study that aims to review current Health & Safety International and National Regulations and best practices for operating Ultra-Long-Range Routes (ULR). ULR operations refer to "An operation involving any sector between a specific city pair (A-B-A) in which the planned flight time exceeds 16 hours, taking into account mean wind conditions and seasonal changes. The scope of this study is to identify different health-related factors affecting Aircrew (Pilots & Flight Attendants) who operate these routes. Based on this review, a gap analysis will be conducted, and recommendations will be presented to mitigate health and safety-related impact factors on Aircrew. As a part of this study, a survey is designed for Aircrew (Pilots and Flight Attendants) who operate on ULR flights. This survey aims to learn about their experience and the different health and safety impact factors that Aircrew experience while operating these routes. Aircrew sought to participate in this study needs to meet the following criteria: - Employed (in the last 24 months) by an air carrier operating scheduled ULR flights (>16hrs); - Qualified as an aircrew member to operate ULR flights. During this study, you will be asked to complete a brief online survey about your opinions concerning health-related issues while operating ULR routes. You will answer several questions about different health-related factors and how it affects your lifestyle, including any prominent experiences you have encountered. The completion of the survey will take approximately 15-20 minutes. If you meet the criteria and are interested in helping, sign up for the study by clicking the link - https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SV2D9KT You can also sign up by scanning the QR code below. Please let me know if you have any questions I can answer. Thank you for your participation Kind Regards, Aditya Rathi ISASI Robertson Fellow M.S. Safety Science '22 (Aviation Safety) Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott rathia@my.erau.edu | (928)-632-2707 Curt Lewis