Flight Safety Information - November 2, 2022 No. 212 In This Issue : Incident: Etihad B789 near Abu Dhabi on Nov 1st 2022, loss of cabin pressure : Incident: Cargolux B748 at Los Angeles on Oct 30th 2022, wheel well fire indication : Incident: Fedex B763 near Las Vegas on Oct 31st 2022, fumes on board : Accident: Calm AT42 at Naujaat on Nov 26th 2020, runway excursion on landing : Delta flight makes emergency landing after smoke fills cabin : Tail Strikes: A Pilot's Perspective : After Whidbey crash, NTSB chair wants Otter seaplanes grounded pending inspection : Over 75 aircraft of Indian carriers grounded due to maintenance, engine issues: Report : Air New Zealand Advises Passengers Not To Use Baggage Trackers : Volocopter raises $182M to bring air taxi closer to certification : NASA Lacks Plan for Ditching Space Station in an Emergency : Call for Papers – ISASI 2023 : Research Study: Professional Pilot Occupational Risk(s) Survey : GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY Incident: Etihad B789 near Abu Dhabi on Nov 1st 2022, loss of cabin pressure An Etihad Boeing 787-9, registration A6-BLT performing flight EY-75 from Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates) to Madrid,SP (Spain), had just levelled off at cruise FL360 when the crew initiated an emergency descent to FL100 levelling off at FL100 about 5 minutes later (average rate of descent 5200 fpm). The aircraft returned to Abu Dhabi for a safe landing on runway 13L about 40 minutes after leaving FL360. The aircraft is still on the ground in Abu Dhabi about 17 hours after landing back. The airline reported the aircraft returned to Abu Dhabi due to a technical issue. https://avherald.com/h?article=5006ae68&opt=0 Incident: Cargolux B748 at Los Angeles on Oct 30th 2022, wheel well fire indication A Cargolux Boeing 747-8 freighter, registration LX-VCH performing flight CV-4327 from Los Angeles,CA (USA) to Luxembourg (Luxembourg) with 3 crew, was climbing out of Los Angeles' runway 25L when the crew reported a wheel well fire indication and stopped the climb at 5000 feet. Subsequently the crew advised the indication had extinguished and requested to climb to 8000 feet to dump fuel. After climbing to 8000 feet the crew advised they needed to immediately land on runway 07L, the fire indication had re-occurred. The aircraft landed on runway 07L about 25 minutes after departure, emergency services reported everything appeared normal on the aircraft, no fire visible. The crew requested to shut the engines down on the runway and the emergency services to check their wheels/brake, they had done an overweight landing. The aircraft subsequently taxied to the apron. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 15 hours, then departed again to Luxembourg landing there. The aircraft is still on the ground in Luxembourg about 8 hours after landing in Luxembourg. https://avherald.com/h?article=5005f81f&opt=0 Incident: Fedex B763 near Las Vegas on Oct 31st 2022, fumes on board A Fedex Federal Express Boeing 767-300, registration N159FE performing flight FX-1219 from San Jose,CA to Memphis,TN (USA) with 6 crew, was enroute at FL370 about 200nm east of Las Vegas,NV (USA) when the crew decided to turn around and divert to Las Vegas reporting fumes on board. The aircraft landed safely on runway 26R about 35 minutes later. The aircraft stopped on the runway and was later towed off the runway. The aircraft is still on the ground in Las Vegas about 13.5 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=5006ac6c&opt=0 Accident: Calm AT42 at Naujaat on Nov 26th 2020, runway excursion on landing A Calm Air Avions de Transport Regional ATR-42-300, registration C-FAFS performing freight flight MO-464 from Rankin Inlet,NU to Naujaat,NU (Canada) with 3 crew on board, landed on Naujaat's (former Repulse Bay's) runway 34 (1040 meters/3400 feet long) at about 13:24L (19:24Z) but veered right off the runway and came to a stop with all gear off the runway on soft ground. There was one serious injury, the aircraft sustained substantial damage. The airline reported "At about 1:30pm local time today, a cargo flight operated by Calm Air (Calm Air flight 464) left the runway at Naujaat Airport in Nunavut. No passengers were on board and the crew are receiving medical evaluations. Calm Air has informed Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board of the incident." Nav Canada reported the aircraft C-FAFS sustained substantial damage in a runway excursion at Naujaat. https://avherald.com/h?article=4dfc5514&opt=0 Delta flight makes emergency landing after smoke fills cabin A Delta Air Lines flight was forced to make an emergency landing Tuesday after the plane's cabin filled with smoke. Delta Air Lines Flight 2846 — which was headed to Los Angeles International Airport from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport — landed safely at Albuquerque International Sunport following a flight-crew report of smoke in the cockpit and passenger cabin, Federal Aviation Administration public affairs specialist Donnell Evans said in a statement. https://www.yahoo.com/news/delta-flight-makes-emergency-landing-010958105.html Tail Strikes: A Pilot's Perspective A few weeks back, we heard the news of an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 suffering from a tail strike during landing. A few weeks back, we heard the news of an Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 787 suffering from a tail strike during landing. And just at the beginning of this year, a British Airways Airbus A350 had a similar event. The Ethiopian case is still under investigation. However, the British Airways case has already been investigated and the reason behind the incident was attributed to pilot error. And this is a common finding in almost all tail strike events that have occurred in the past. It is caused by the human component. One of the most interesting things in these two events is that the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787 are the most advanced aircraft in the skies today, with so many inbuilt protections, including systems to prevent tail strikes. This shows the important role the human pilot plays in keeping the tail of the aircraft safe during take-offs and landings. What is a tail strike A tail strike is an event whereby an aircraft tail contacts the runway. Tail strikes occur during take-offs and landings. When it occurs, it can cause significant amounts of damage to the aircraft, sometimes requiring major repair work. The longer the aircraft is, the more prone it is to a tail strike. When the aircraft is long it is said to be geometrically limited and this can lead to lower tail strike margins. The data and statistics show that most tail strikes occur during landing. According to Airbus statistical data, over 65% of tail strikes happen during landings, while only 25% occur during take-offs. Tail strikes during take-offs There are several reasons why a tail strike might occur on take-off. In the following paragraphs, we will look at some of them in more detail. Use of incorrect speeds for takeoff The aircraft is designed to lift off at a particular speed. When below this speed, the aircraft wings cannot produce sufficient lift to fly off the runway. During the test phase of a prototype aircraft, a test called Vmu (Minimum unstick speed) test is performed. This test is performed to find the lowest speed at which the aircraft could safely lift off. As this test is carried out at a very low speed, in a long aircraft, this leads to a tail strike. And for testing purposes, this is quite normal. In such a situation, the wings do not provide the required lift, but the thrust from the engines generates a vertical vector that pushes the nose of the aircraft. The vertical attitude of the aircraft is then limited by the tail hitting the runway. The tail is then dragged on the runway until the wings generated enough lift to finally lift the aircraft off the ground. By doing this test, the manufacturer can determine the very basic performance of their prototype and use the speeds and data gained from the test to come up with operational speeds such as the rotation speed (Vr) which the normal pilots use to initiate the rotation for lift off. This Vr speed is way above the Vmu. When flown at Vr, the aircraft tail will stay well clear. But then why do tail strikes occur? One reason is a miscalculation of the Vr speed during pre-flight. The speed for Vr is directly proportional to the weight of the aircraft. The heavier it is, the higher the Vr. Thus, if the pilot inputs a lower Vr than the actual Vr and rotates at the wrong lower Vr, the aircraft might suffer from a tail strike. Poor rotation technique The rotation for lift-off is one single maneuver, whereby at Vr speed, the pilot must pull back on the stick at a pitch rate of about 3 degrees per second. In heavier longer aircraft, due to inertia, the aircraft can sometimes react slower to pilot actions on the control stick or yoke. The worst thing a pilot can do at this point is to pull back more on the stick to increase the pitch rate. This will add to the already developing pitch rate and make the rotation rate too quick and too fast making the tail strike the runway. Pilots who transition from smaller aircraft to much larger aircraft must be very aware of the proper technique for rotation. In smaller aircraft, with manual (cable) powered controls, sometimes a lot of effort is required from the pilot during the rotation. In aircraft with hydraulic controls, being aggressive during rotation could cause a build up excessive pitch rate which could in certain cases cause a tail strike. Incorrect aircraft Center of Gravity (CG) or mistrimmed stabilizer The aircraft's CG location determines the handling of the aircraft. The more aft or back it is the more sensitive the aircraft is in pitch control and the more forward it is the heavier the aircraft is in pitch. The latter rarely leads to tail strikes as it prevents an over control situation. However, when the CG is well back, the ever-sensitive pitch control may lead to an over control, and the tail may contact the ground. A more forward CG makes it difficult to rotate the aircraft for takeoff and at the same time a more aft CG can lead to a tail strike. During pre-flight, the pilots set the stabilizer of the aircraft to ensure that the aircraft is trimmed to the correct setting. When the aircraft is for instance loaded in such a way the nose is heavy, the trim is set such that the effort the pilot must apply on the controls is reduced so that the aircraft lifts off the runway easily. If the pilots were to mistakenly set the set stabilizer trim more nose up than is required, then the aircraft might be a little over-sensitive in pitch and this may lead to a tail strike. Tail strikes during landing Research has shown that tail strikes that occur during landing cause more damage to the aircraft. One of the reasons behind this is the fact, during landing, the tail may strike the ground before the main landing gear making the aft pressure bulkhead absorb all the energy. Also, during the landing, the aircraft is in a low energy state, and this can make the tail drag on the runway for a longer period. As for the take-off, many factors lead to a tail strike on landing. Unstabilized approaches The major contributor to tail strikes on landings is unstable approaches. A stable approach is one where, the aircraft is at the correct speed, and correct glide while tracking the runway center line. Below, we are going to look at things that make the approach unstable and how they may lead to a tail strike. Too low of an approach speed The aircraft approach speed must be maintained until the point of touch down. A decrease in speed causes a decrease in lift and aircraft energy. It is this energy and lift that cushions the landing when the pilots eventually pull back on the controls for the landing flare. In the absence of this, the only way to reduce the sink during the touchdown is to pull on the controls harder which increases the pitch attitude of the aircraft. This reduces the clearance between the tail of the aircraft and the ground. Too high or too low of a landing flare Aircraft should be flared in accordance with its size and how inertia works on it. Generally, heavier, and larger aircraft require an early flare than smaller aircraft. When the aircraft is flared by pulling back on the controls earlier, the aircraft tends to start to lose speed and float and when the pilot pulls on the controls further back as the aircraft approaches the touch-down point, there is an increase in pitch attitude and a greater loss of speed. This can result in a tail strike. Similarly, when the aircraft is flared too late, the pilot may tend to flare more by giving larger pull-back inputs. This can again, increase the pitch attitude of the aircraft resulting in the tail scraping the runway. Incorrect handling of the aircraft during crosswinds During crosswinds, the aircraft needs to be cross controlled at the touch-down to minimize the lateral forces on the main landing gear. Initially, the aircraft approaches with a crab, where its nose is pointed into the wind, while the track of the aircraft follows the runway center line. When cross controlled, the rudder is applied to center the aircraft to the runway center line while the roll controls are applied to keep it from drifting. When roll controls are applied, in most large aircraft, the roll spoilers also come up, which reduces the overall lift on the wings. The cross-controlled situation also increases the drag on the airframe, which leads to a high sink rate. To correct this sink, the pilot may pull back on the controls to the point the tail strikes the ground. Incorrect handling of the aircraft during go-arounds When a go-around is performed close to the ground, particularly with engines in idle power or thrust, the tail may strike. One of the main reasons for this is the fact when the thrust levers are moved forward to add thrust for the go-around, it takes about 7-8 seconds for the engines to spool up. If the pilot pulls back too much to get the aircraft flying for the go-around, with engines not spooled up, the lack of aircraft energy could result in a tail strike. This was what happened in the recent British Airways Airbus A350 tail strike incident. How to prevent tail strikes During take-off When taking off, tail strikes can be reduced by adhering to the correct procedures. The pilots must ensure that the take-off speeds are correct. This can be done by two pilots independently checking and cross-checking the performance that is entered into the aircraft flight management system. This way, any inconsistent data such as an incorrect Vr speed may be found before the take-off is commenced. The rotation during the take-off must be a calm continuous maneuver to achieve a 3 degrees per-second rotation. There is no point in being too aggressive during the rotation, particularly in a longer aircraft. When transitioning to a new model of an aircraft, the pilots must be aware that the new aircraft may not have the same characteristics as his or her previous aircraft. To make sure that the aircraft is loaded properly, the pilot must check the final load sheet and the trim setting. If he or she feels that the trim value in the load sheet is not appropriate, you must raise questions with the load control as the captain of the aircraft has the final say on how the aircraft is to be loaded. Cargo unloading from plane Photo: SEA Group It is also important to ensure that the physical trim on the aircraft is set properly during pre-flight. Even after all these checks tge aircraft may still behave incorrectly during the takeoff because the pilots see the numbers and not how the actual loading was performed. So, an incorrect loading might still give the aircraft undesirable rotation characteristics. If the aircraft is found out to be too pitch-sensitive during rotation, the pilot must try not to play it with too much and get it airborne. These things should not be much trouble for a well-trained pilot. Once on the ground after the flight, the incident should be reported to the airline’s safety department for a proper investigation. During landing The most important thing on landing is to always be stabilized. Unstabilized approaches put the pilot under stress to get the aircraft stabilized requiring large control and thrust lever movements. The aircraft should always be at the correct speed and trajectory during the final approach to landing. The flare for the touchdown should be initiated at the correct point which is applicable to the aircraft. It should not be too low or too high. A stabilized approach ensures that the aircraft is on a correct trajectory at flare height. During a low-altitude go-around, the pilots must be aware of the engine spool-up time and must not be too quick in increasing the pitch attitude of the aircraft. In larger aircraft pilots should expect wheel contact with the ground in a low go-around. This is normal as the inertia of the aircraft does not allow it to fly away that easily. So, when such a contact is made, the pilots should not alarm themselves and pitch up more. This could lead to a tail strike. What protections are there in aircraft to prevent tail strikes Modern aircraft, particularly those with fly-by-wire control systems have tail protection systems. In takeoffs, what the pilot feels in his hands plays a major role in how he initiates the rotation for takeoff. This “feel” varies with aircraft weight and CG location. Thus, ensuring that the feel to the pilot is the same at all CGs and weights could reduce the rotation inconsistencies. In those aircraft with hydraulically actuated controls (all heavy aircraft), the artificial feel system can be tweaked to always give the pilot a similar feel for rotation. This is a feature found in many aircraft with hydraulically controlled flight control surfaces. In fly-by-wire aircraft, tail strike protection systems are built and written into the control software. In the Boeing 787, the Primary Flight Computers (PFCs) monitor the tail clearance at all times. If this clearance goes below a threshold, the elevator deflection is automatically reduced without input from the pilot. This reduces the chance of a tail strike if the pilot were to mishandle the aircraft. In older Airbus aircraft, the rotation on takeoffs is quite conventional. The rotation rate during take-off for example varied for a given stick input based on aircraft weight and CG. Even in these aircraft however, the maximum elevator deflection angle is reduced during take-off to prevent over control. In newer Airbus aircraft, the rotation is homogenized. That is, the input on the side stick is now converted to a pitch rate demand which is fixed and does not vary with outside and aircraft conditions. Like the Boeing system, the aircraft computers at all times monitor the tail clearance with data from the radio altimeters and use it to vary the elevator deflection to prevent tail strikes both on take-off and landing. https://simpleflying.com/tail-strikes-pilot-perspective/ After Whidbey crash, NTSB chair wants Otter seaplanes grounded pending inspection The federal agency investigating the September seaplane crash off Whidbey Island said Monday that its experts have identified a potential cause of the deadly accident and called for similar planes to be grounded until they are inspected. “We’re concerned that another plane could crash as a result of something similar,” said Jennifer Homendy, chair of the National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the Sept. 4 crash that killed 10 people. “Right now, the focus has to be [on] what could contribute to a further tragedy in the future.” However, the NTSB cannot order the grounding of the de Havilland Canada DHC-3 Otter turboprops. That authority resides with the Federal Aviation Administration, which has not yet issued a directive. When investigators examined the wreckage of the crashed plane, they found that a critical component that moves the plane’s horizontal tail had come apart. In a lab examination last week, the NTSB determined the part had come apart before impact. Its failure could lead to loss of control and send a plane into a nose dive, which is what dozens of witnesses reported seeing. The detail in the NTSB update strongly suggests a possible maintenance oversight. David Gudgel, chief operating officer of local operator Kenmore Air, said his company was made aware of the vulnerability last week and immediately grounded its fleet of 10 Otters. All inspections were then quickly completed without a break in service, he said. Homendy said the agency issued its investigation update to get the word out to all companies flying the Otter to “make sure that they are inspected immediately before they operate these planes again.” The DHC-3 Otter that crashed was operated by Renton-based Friday Harbor Seaplanes. This aircraft is an aging workhorse of the Puget Sound air transportation system that routinely flies tourists and commuters to the San Juan islands and Canada. It was first built in the 1950s and a total of 466 were produced through 1967. Today, only 65 Otters remain flying in the U.S. and 160 worldwide. The NTSB is working with Viking Air of Canada, which took control of the Otter’s maintenance and certification requirements, on a service bulletin that will go out to all operators of the airplane with detailed inspection instructions. Doug Brazy, the NTSB investigator in charge of the Whidbey crash, said he expects that letter to be sent out “sometime this week” and that it will likely have urgent wording recommending that the inspections be completed before further flight. In a statement, the FAA said the agency is in close communication with Transport Canada, which certified the Otter, and Viking Air. “The FAA will take appropriate action based on the manufacturer’s service bulletin and any associated actions from the Canadian authorities,” the statement said. Kenmore Air, with all its Otters having already passed inspection, on Monday afternoon was offering tickets for a scenic tour of the San Juan Islands aboard an Otter from its Lake Washington base. A critical component comes apart The component that NTSB investigators found had come apart is an actuator that swivels the horizontal tail — also called the stabilizer — to control the pitch of the airplane. A cable from the cockpit wraps around the barrel of the actuator, providing the mechanical connection between the stabilizer and the pilot. This component coming apart “during flight would result in a free-floating horizontal stabilizer, allowing it to rotate uncontrollably … about its hinge, resulting in a possible loss of airplane control,” the NTSB update said. The seaplane crashed into Puget Sound just off Whidbey Island about half an hour into a flight from Friday Harbor to Renton. The pilot and all nine passengers were killed. The investigators said that when the wreckage was retrieved, the upper portion of the actuator was found still attached to the horizontal stabilizer while beside it, but disconnected; the lower portion was “attached to its mount in the fuselage.” They said the separation of occurred when a clamp nut that should have been fixed in place by a circular wire lock ring unthreaded and rotated. NTSB’s Homendy said the separation of the actuator almost certainly didn’t happen as a result of the impact. If that were the case, the threads on the clamp nut and inside the barrel of the actuator would have been stripped, she said. The fact that the threads were intact suggests instead that it separated because the clamp nut and lock ring were not securely fastened. The NTSB said that while the lock ring was not found in the wreckage, they found that three of five holes drilled in the clamp nut to accept the lock ring were damaged “such that they would not allow for the full insertion of the lock ring.” “This suggests that it may be possible for a lock ring to be partially installed … not fully seated in a hole in the clamp nut,” the NTSB said. “Further, it might be difficult to visually determine if the lock ring is fully engaged in the clamp nut hole” depending on conditions such as lighting, viewing angle and the presence of dirt or grease. Homendy said one possibility is that the clamp nut “was not screwed in at all.” Or, she said, it could also have been partially screwed in but not fully secured with the lock ring. The most recent overhaul of the plane’s horizontal stabilizer actuator was completed April 21. Homendy said that during this major maintenance event, mechanics would have taken the actuator assembly apart and put it back together. “At this time, the NTSB does not know whether the lock ring was installed before the airplane impacted the water or why the lock ring was not present during the airplane examination,” the update said. Brazy, the investigator in charge, said he hasn’t yet seen the maintenance records for that specific task. He said the NTSB priority is to get the word out quickly about this vulnerability and after that, the agency will comb through the maintenance records to find out what happened. Homendy said the agency has not officially determined the probable cause of the crash and is still looking at other components of the plane, maintenance records and meteorology. Initially, the NTSB estimated the full investigation could take up to two years to complete. In coordination with Transport Canada, the NTSB has asked Viking to draft instructions for all DHC-3 operators to inspect the actuator to ensure that the lock ring is in place and properly engaged to prevent unthreading of the clamp nut. Witnesses who saw the plane nose dive into Mutiny Bay helped officials identify the crash site. Still, it took over a week and three types of sonar to locate what remained of the plane because of its depth and the current of the channel where the aircraft hit the water before fracturing beneath the surface. Crews using remotely operated vessels and cranes recovered the majority of the plane’s wreckage from the sea floor more than 150 feet below the surface in late September. Six bodies have been recovered. Those include the body of 29-year-old Gabby Hanna, which was recovered by witnesses the day of the crash, and five others found during recovery efforts. Family members of those who have not been recovered are privately contracting remote submersibles to continue searching, since NTSB and Navy crews have stopped recovery efforts. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/whidbey-seaplane-crash-investigators-identify-possible-cause/ Over 75 aircraft of Indian carriers grounded due to maintenance, engine issues: Report • These planes, grounded due to maintenance or engine-related issues, account for around 10-12 per cent of the Indian fleet Aviation consultancy firm Corrective and Preventive Actions (CAPA) said on Tuesday that more than 75 planes of the Indian carriers have been grounded due to maintenance and engine-related issues. These planes account for around 10-12 per cent of the Indian fleet. According to a report, the planes are grounded due to maintenance or engine-related issues. "These will have a significant impact on financials in the second half," CAPA said in its India Mid-Year Outlook 2023. More than 75 aircraft are currently grounded, creating serious challenges against the backdrop of an already hostile cost environment and contributing to increased losses, the report said. The capacity has been impacted by serious supply chain issues impacting current and future deliveries, it said, adding that these issues are likely to proliferate in the fiscal starting April 2023 which, in turn, will impact future deliveries, the report said. However, none of the domestic airlines have made any public statement regarding the grounding of the aircraft. According to CAPA, delays in future deliveries could also reflect liquidity issues as the income from the sale and lease back financing may be less than planned. Delays in aircraft deliveries may also result in increased unit costs for carriers due to the need to extend the leases of older aircraft in the fleet, which have higher maintenance costs and fuel consumption than the new aircraft that would have replaced them, it said. Non-supply issues such as a shortage of pilots and engineers are also likely to emerge next year. Recently, an IndiGo plane declared an emergency at the Delhi airport after one of its engines caught fire at the time of taxiing. The flight had 184 people onboard --177 passengers and seven crew members. The Bengaluru-bound A320 aircraft later returned to the bay and the passengers were deboarded safely. https://www.livemint.com/news/over-75-aircraft-of-indian-carriers-grounded-due-to-maintenance-engine-issues-report-11667296823675.html -Air New Zealand Advises Passengers Not To Use Baggage Trackers Are baggage trackers truly a flight safety hazard? Following the baggage tracker drama with Lufthansa about the ban on using Apple's AirTags, fellow Star Alliance member Air New Zealand is almost following suit. On its website, the flag carrier categorized baggage trackers under lithium battery-operated devices and has advised passengers against using them. How did baggage trackers become so popular? With the chaotic mixture of a staffing shortage, surging passenger demand, and ramped-up flight schedules, the global aviation industry has been quite overwhelmed this year as it entered a post-pandemic recovery era. Simply put, the resources within the industry could not keep up with the increasing demand, and one consequential result was having almost 220,000 bags mishandled in April 2022 alone. Discover more aviation news for Australia and Oceania here! Passengers became stressed out without knowing where their checked baggage had ended up, and vacation moods were often spoilt. And this is why baggage trackers such as the AirTags, the Tile Pro Bluetooth Tracker, and the LandAirSea GPS Tracker have risen in popularity. These devices are especially useful in relocating passengers' misplaced baggage within overwhelmed airports, making it easier for passengers to attempt with airlines to get it back. Besides being relatively wallet-friendly, these baggage trackers are also small. so placing them in passengers' bags is not a hassle. It also does not affect the weight of passengers' checked baggage much. Using such devices also doesn't require much effort on the user's part, as it simply needs to be turned on and have a Bluetooth connection with a respectable distance, and the item remains tracked. Why is Air New Zealand not a fan? Given these baggage trackers' usefulness, passengers are always a fan. Airlines, however, such as Air New Zealand, are mainly not. It is worth noting that most portable electronic trackers are powered by coin cell batteries, basically batteries made from lithium. This already raises a red flag regarding safety and security for the airline. According to the airline, since the baggage trackers must remain turned on and consistently send Bluetooth signals, such devices are still considered a safety hazard. The airline said: "As products such as the AirTag and Tile are portable electronic devices that cannot be turned off, dangerous goods regulations currently prohibit them from being carried in checked-in luggage." However, Air New Zealand might have learned a lesson from Lufthansa: to not jump to conclusions so quickly with an immediate ban. Instead, the advisory from Air New Zealand states that although passengers are not entirely prohibited from using tracking devices, trackers with an automated on/off feature cannot be used in flight. It is allowed if passengers have a tracker that can be manually switched off. Get the latest aviation news straight to your inbox: Sign up for our newsletters today! What does this mean for passengers? Admittedly, turning off such devices renders them completely useless and defeats their sole purpose, so it does seem quite a beat around the bush. And if passengers are curious if Air New Zealand might change its mind just like how Lufthansa did, the answer is probably no. Instead, the flag carrier plans to review such devices early next year, commenting: "As part of Air New Zealand’s safety management system, a review of these products will likely occur in early 2023. Following this, discussions with the regulatory authority may be undertaken.” However, there is no clear indication of how Air New Zealand intends to enforce or uphold this advisory. New Zealand's Aviation Security Service has also not received instruction from airlines or regulatory authorities to screen or remove such devices from bags. Essentially, passengers could still use the devices without getting caught. https://simpleflying.com/air-new-zealand-advises-passengers-not-use-baggage-trackers/ Volocopter raises $182M to bring air taxi closer to certification Volocopter, a German startup building electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) vehicles, has secured $182 million for the second signing of its Series E round. That’s on top of the $170 million Volocopter raised for the same round in March at a $1.87 billion post-money valuation. Volocopter is currently in full swing testing its two-seater VoloCity air taxi based on the requirements set by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The fresh funds will flow into the company’s testing regime to help bring it closer to Special Condition for small category VTOL aircraft certification and, by extension, commercialization. Volocopter hopes to certify its aircraft by the second half of 2023 and launch initial revenue-generating rides by 2024, the company said. So far, the EASA has granted Volocopter Design Organisation Approval in 2019 and Production Organisation Approval in 2021 — two prerequisites for obtaining type certification for the VoloCity and launching commercially. The additional funds to Volocopter’s Series E will also help prep the urban air mobility ecosystem — including infrastructure, integration with other mobility forms and raising public awareness — so when the VoloCity is certified, Volocopter can begin offering rides immediately, according to a spokesperson. “First commercial operations will be a small number of Volocopters flying on specific routes (maybe one or two) with paying customers,” Helena Treeck, Volocopter’s head of PR, told TechCrunch via email. “From there, the network of routes will continuously grow to offer more and more routes and flights on connections, where we can really add value (beyond the fantastic view) to our customers, like time savings and predictability of services.” The VoloCity took its first crewed public test flight out of Rome’s Fiumicino Airport earlier this month, where the startup also demoed its VoloIQ digital platform that Volocopter says supports everything from customer bookings to managing flight operations. That might make Rome Volocopter’s first choice for market launch, but also on the table are cities like Singapore, Paris and Neom, a smart city being built north of the Red Sea in the Tabuk Province of Saudi Arabia. Neom came in on this round as a lead investor, alongside GLy Capital Management of Hong Kong, a Geely-backed private equity firm that focuses on smart cars, electrification and intelligent cities. Neom and Volocopter formed a joint venture company last December to integrate the VoloCity air taxi and the VoloDrone, the startup’s heavy load-lifting electric drone, into Neom’s connected mobility systems. The city has already placed an order for 15 Volocopter aircraft to begin initial flight operations within the next one to two years. Volocopter has also formed a JV with Geely Holding to bring urban air mobility to China. The JV signed an agreement last year to purchase 150 Volocopter aircraft, and Geely is expected to assist with production. https://tinyurl.com/3p6dpeff NASA Lacks Plan for Ditching Space Station in an Emergency • The ISS has been in orbit for more than 20 years. • ISS partners have a plan in place to deorbit the space station in nine years. A safety panel says this plan is now incomplete and potentially deficient as a result of the increasing density of low Earth orbit and as relations on the ground continue to deteriorate. NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recently recommended that the space agency develop a deorbit plan for the ISS that can be immediately executed in case there is an emergency. During a public session on Wednesday, members of the panel expressed their concerns regarding an ISS controlled reentry plan that NASA had suggested in 2020, arguing that the ISS is “operating at risk today,” Space Policy Online reported. Earlier this year, NASA solidified its plan to deorbit the ISS by using three Russian Progress cargo vehicles to lower the lab’s orbit and bring it down for reentry into Earth’s atmosphere. The current plan calls for this to happen in 2031, at which time the falling station will crash into the Pacific ocean and away from populated areas. During the session, however, panel member Sandy Magnus revealed that “discussions among the ISS partners have identified technical and operational issues which need further addressing.” NASA was in the midst of discussions with its Russian partners to finalize the plan, but the relationship between the two space agencies has been tense as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In February, for example, former head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos Dmitry Rogozin tweeted: “If you block cooperation with us, who will save the ISS from an uncontrolled deorbit and fall into the United States or Europe?” In August, NASA put out a call for its commercial partners to develop a spacecraft capable of performing the final reentry maneuvers for the ISS at the end of its life. In June, the space agency used a docked Cygnus spacecraft to maneuver the ISS, presenting another possible option. These developments aside, the space agency currently has no executable plan should there be a need for an emergency deorbiting. That risk has NASA’s safety panel worried, especially in consideration of the increasing number of satellites and spacecraft in low Earth orbit that surround the ISS. Indeed, the orbiting lab is frequently having to perform dodging maneuvers to steer it away from hazards, including space junk. “The risk to public safety and space sustainability is increasing every year as the orbital altitude in and around the ISS continues to become more densely populated by satellites, increasing the likelihood that an unplanned emergency ISS deorbit would also impact other resident space objects,” Magnus said. As a result, the panel recommended that “NASA should define an executable and appropriately budgeted deorbit plan.” This plan needs to be put in place as soon as possible, “as well as in place before the retirement of the ISS to ensure that the station is able to be deorbited safely,” the panel added. In operation since 2000, the ISS has served as an orbiting laboratory for microgravity experiments. Upon the conclusion of the mission, the ISS will likely be replaced by commercial space stations as a consequence of the evolving public-private hybrid space industry. https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-lacks-plan-ditching-space-142500492.html International Society of Air Safety Investigators https://www.isasi.org/ Call for Papers – ISASI 2023 Nashville, Tennessee: Renaissance Nashville Hotel August 21 – August 25, 2023 The 2023 Theme is “Accidents: The Current Which Lies Beneath” This will be an in-person event with Tutorials on Monday the 21st, Seminar presentations from Tuesday the 22nd through Thursday the 24th and various gatherings throughout the week. Please find the official Call for Papers here: Call for Papers 2023 Final.pdf Please submit expressions of interest to isasi2023@isasi.org Thank you, Your ISASI 2023 Annual Seminar Committee Research Study: Professional Pilot Occupational Risk(s) Survey My name is August Parker, and I am a Doctor of Occupational Therapy Student at the University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences. I am inviting employed professional pilots to participate in this study by completing an internet survey for a project entitled, “An Occupational Perspective: Therapeutic Interventions to Facilitate Job Performance in Aviators and Astronauts”. The purpose of this study is to assess professional pilots experience with risk(s) in musculoskeletal functioning, mental health, and overall well-being for flight performance. This is a one-time, voluntary survey that is anticipated to take no more than 10 minutes to complete. If you agree, your identity as a participant will remain anonymous during and after the study. This survey is not affiliated with any aviation-related organizations or facilities. I would be grateful if you could forward this message to other pilots in your workforce. If you have any questions, please contact me, August Parker by email at a.parker@usa.edu. For more information and access to the survey, please access the link provided below: https://sway.office.com/ksURu4OaOEAXm7mC?ref=Link THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE FOR HEALTH SCIENCES INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, PLEASE CONTACT THE INSTITUTIONAL IRB CHAIR, DR. LORI KUPCZYNSKI, EMAIL: LKUPCZYNSKI@USA.EDU, PHONE: 904-330-1559 Thank you for your participation! August Parker, OTDS a.parker@usa.edu The University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences 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