Flight Safety Information - April 4, 2023 No. 064 In This Issue : What Crucial Evidence Was Missing from the 2022 Air France/Airbus Manslaughter Trial and Why : Incident: Southwest B737 at Phoenix on Mar 31st 2023, engine shut down in flight : Incident: Lufthansa B748 over Atlantic on Apr 3rd 2023, hydraulic problems : Incident: SAS E195 at Paris on Apr 1st 2023, cabin did not pressurize : Incident: Transavia B738 near Amsterdam on Apr 1st 2023, computer failure : Incident: American B738 at Merida on Apr 1st 2023, flaps problems on approach : Bryan Burns Traces ACSF Growth in Members, Safety Programs : Amsterdam Schiphol Airport Plans Curfew, Private Jet Ban : Plane forced to make emergency stop during take-off after another aircraft crosses runway : TSA officers prevent 5 guns from being carried on airplanes at Detroit Metropolitan Airport in 4 days : UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with scanners : Emirates Will Send 5 Boeing 777s To Turkish Airlines For Maintenance : Passengers Sue Hawaiian Airlines: Turbulence Mass Injuries | Who’s Responsible? : IATA Launches New Drive To Strengthen Aviation In Africa : Call for Nominations For 2023 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award : Share your knowledge and experience at 2023 CHC Safety & Quality Summit. Call for Papers is now open for 2023 CHC Safety & Quality Summit. What Crucial Evidence Was Missing from the 2022 Air France/Airbus Manslaughter Trial and Why Flight Safety Information Commentary By Roger Rapoport Senior Editor On May 30, 2009 a state-of-the-art Air France Airbus 330, designed with ‘fail-safe’ AI stall protections took off from Rio’s Anton Carlos Jobim Airport. Three hours and forty-five minutes later the aircraft carrying 228 passengers and crew disappeared in the South Atlantic. In many important ways this tragedy, which has become the Titanic of aviation accidents, defines the central paradox of commercial aviation: Hidden dangers continue to threaten air safety, even on the best planes in the sky. Attempts to resolve this problem continue to challenge the industry. Exhibit A is the French Public Prosecutor’s involuntary manslaughter case brought against Air France and Airbus. This nine-week Paris trial heard by a three judge tribunal featured dueling testimony from many of the nation’s leading aviation experts representing the defendants, flight 447 pilots and bereaved families of all those lost. Missing was testimony documenting the 25-year history of regulatory and airline failures to correct high altitude stall recovery training in the face of substantial evidence. While the tribunal’s April 17 verdict will be worldwide news, it will not detail the astonishing fact that high altitude stall procedures, which led directly to the Air France 447 crash, were incorrectly taught for decades. Long before the Rio/Paris crash many of the world’s top air safety experts, including test pilots at Boeing, Airbus, and McDonnell Douglas, leaders of the prestigious Flight Safety Foundation, veteran accident investigators and Air France captains had been warning that high altitude stall recovery procedures and guidelines were dead wrong. A quick summary of what leaders of all three aircraft companies had to say was memorialized in a video filmed at the Smithsonian. This warning was central to a 1998 industry-led Upset Recovery Training Aid created by airlines, manufacturers, government regulatory agencies and pilot associations. It was submitted to airlines and regulators worldwide. Turning a blind eye to this evidence, top regulatory officials at the Federal Aviation Administration, the Joint Aviation Authority (now the European Aviation Agency), and airlines, including Air France, failed to correct erroneous high altitude stall recovery training and regulations. To qualify and periodically re-qualify for their licenses, pilots around the world were required to demonstrate their ability to handle a stall by performing a completely incorrect procedure that could ultimately become the difference between life and death. Again and again the “error” was requiring pilots to “power out” rather than descend in the face of a potential stall, something which is particularly problematic at high altitude. Worse, those who challenged the conventional wisdom, including the outspoken chief pilots at both Airbus and Boeing, Larry Rockliff and David Carbaugh, were persona non grata on this critical safety issue. These experts insisted that the correct stall recovery procedure was to proactively reduce the angle of attack, losing altitude as necessary. Their aerodynamic evidence, based on well-documented test flights was ignored and silenced by an industry which was leadenly intransigent about changing long-held procedures, ultimately putting lives at risk. It was not as if they didn’t have the evidence either. A series of crashes, including a West Caribbean Airways MD-82 jet that went down in Venezuela in August 2005 with 160 aboard, backed up the experts. This event fully documented their devastating critique of the wrong procedure mandated by the regulators and the airlines. While government accident investigators incorrectly attributed disasters like this one to “pilot error” the fact was that the pilots and their passengers were victims of regulatory and corporate malpractice. Incredibly just one regulatory agency, Transport Canada, saw the light and corrected this training error in 2005. “The engine thrust available at high altitude is much less than at low altitude because the air density is thinner, “ explains Carbaugh. Any pilot brave enough to challenge the conventional wisdom, such as Air France Captain Jerome Agnel, one of four key whistleblowers in this story, did so at risk to their livelihood. After saving an Airbus 330 from a near stall on an August 2008 Madagascar-bound flight by correctly descending, he confronted a top company safety official in Paris. Obviously following the mandated requirement for stall recovery could have led to a crash. Instead of listening to Agnel and warning all his Air France flight crews of this hidden danger, that Air France executive reprimanded Captain Agnel for not following company procedures. “I’m alive,” responded the right-thinking Air France captain who probably saved hundreds from a crash in the Sudan. Three months later, in November 2008, Agnel’s view was confirmed by a 222-page update of the 1998 Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aide. Created by a team of 70 world-class aviation industry experts, the group was co-chaired by Boeing Chief Pilot Carbaugh and Airbus Chief Pilot for the Americas Rockliff (the next two whistleblowers), and Bob Vandel, executive vice-president of the Flight Safety Foundation. This update was submitted to the group’s FAA organizer, Operation Safety Inspector Gloria LaRoche, formerly a veteran United Airlines captain. Like Agnel, this crystal clear document warned that it was only a matter of time before another crash proved that the industry’s continuation bias on high altitude stall recovery procedure was fatally wrong. Among the recipients of this critical document was Air France’s safety chief together with his counterparts at regulatory agencies and airlines worldwide. Despite all this, the vital warning and detailed explanation of the correct recovery procedure were not shared with Air France pilots. Even after the FAA put the document online in December 2008, officials at that agency and European Air Safety Agency failed to take long overdue regulatory action. “This incomprehensible bureaucratic roadblock potentially threatened even the most experienced flight crew,”says 777 Captain and veteran accident investigator Shem Captain Malmquist, a professor at Florida Institute of Technology. Making matters worse was a critical design error compounding the challenges faced by the Air France 447 crew over the Atlantic early on the morning of June 1, 2009. To prevent the stall warning alarm from triggering during the first part of a takeoff roll, the Airbus design team set this critical alarm feature to sound only when airspeed was above 80 knots. Below that speed the stall alarm warning would not go off. This ignored the distinct possibility that in the predictable event of unreliable airspeed indication, the stall warning system could send pilots completely wrong information. That is exactly what happened to Air France 447. All three airspeed indicators (pitots) froze. False alarms from this failed system incorrectly told the pilots their jet was going to stall every time they correctly lowered the nose to prevent a stall. At the same time it told them they were not in a stall when they followed a broken flight director instrument’s instruction to climb into a potential stall. As Boeing’s Carbaugh points out: “Every time the flight crew correctly put the nose down to descend and prevent a stall, the airspeed indication increased above 80 knots and triggered a stall warning. When they stopped the descent and put the nose back up, the incorrect airspeed indication system turned off the stall warning alarm. I wish we had added a three-minute YouTube video to our upset recovery report update and sent it to all pilots. It could have made a critical difference.” Overwhelming evidence from the Air France 447 crash and another low-altitude stall crash on a Buffalo bound Colgan Air (Continental) flight in February 2009 finally forced the American government to take action. After intense lobbying by relatives and friends of the Colgan Air victims, and continuing press coverage, Congress passed a law in August 2010 requiring the FAA to change its ongoing insistent focus on approach to stall recovery regulation and training requirement. In 2013 the FAA issued a final ruling requiring retraining of all airline pilots on the correct identification and recovery from a stall condition within five years. Air France and the European Air Safety Agency followed suit. In the end it cost the industry over $100 million to complete this pilot retraining in 2018, two decades after the first Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid was issued by the industry group. Despite these changes Carbaugh and Rockliff agree the industry has marginally corrected how pilots are trained to handle stall recovery in many unexpected situations. As Malmquist explains: “Current pilot training is not realistic. The stall training scenarios are predictable and do not reflect the circumstances that represent real-world scenarios.” Rockliff agrees: “These scenarios are almost exclusively limited to low and medium altitude environments that still focus on approach to stall, which is completely different from an actual stall. Missing from the training and testing process is the completely unexpected element presented to the pilot. The training script and testing outcome have no element of realism. Once again the regulatory system has not handled this opportunity to improve, with an operational methodology.” Gloria LaRoche, the FAA official who filed a whistleblower lawsuit over incorrect stall recovery procedures in 2010 (and dropped it in 2011 after the FAA began to take corrective action on this issue with an advisory circular) agrees: “The industry still has a long way to go on this important training.” Clearly the April 17 Paris verdict from the tribunal in the French manslaughter case against Air France and Airbus will lead the prevailing party to claim vindication along with a vigorous dissent from the losing party. Missing from this dialogue will be the most important lesson learned from Air France 447. When automation system design doesn't work, a quick-thinking pilot is all that stands between a safe landing and disaster. The complete failure of the regulators in America and France to listen to the collective wisdom of test pilots who flew the correct high altitude stall recovery procedure years before Air France 447 and similar crashes is a tragedy, one which now appears to have been avoidable. As Larry Rockliff, now a worldwide independent aviation consultant, explains: “It’s easier to change the Ten Commandments than correct a dangerously obsolete government regulation in aviation.” How ironic that the responsible regulatory aviation agencies, especially EASA (which successfully claimed immunity in this manslaughter case), were not co-defendants in this historic legal action.” “You can’t blame the pilots for not doing a high altitude stall recovery procedure that did not exist,” says LaRoche.“At the time of the Air France 447 and the Colgan Air crashes neither EASA or the FAA had a correct procedure for stall recovery.” Sadly, Captain Agnel’s correct court testimony was disputed by his former boss at the fall 2022 Paris trial. That Air France safety manager insisted that his company’s failure to share Agnel’s prescient warning after the near crash of the 2008 Madagascar flight, was the correct decision. It’s hard to believe that manufacturers and airlines that can send computer updates to flight crews in seconds are overseen by bureaucrats who take decades to acknowledge and correct their mistakes. We now know, for sure, that when government regulators fail to watch over us in this new automation age, we all lose. “The problem,”says Carbaugh,“is that large bureaucracies move slowly. In aviation that cost lives.” Roger Rapoport, has been writing about Air France 447 for nearly 14 years. He is the coauthor of Angle of Attack: Air France 447 and the Future of Aviation Safety, and Grounded (both lexographicpress.com) and the producer of the feature film Pilot Error. Visit rogerrapoport.com for more information. Copyright © 2023 Roger Rapoport Incident: Southwest B737 at Phoenix on Mar 31st 2023, engine shut down in flight A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700, registration N264LV performing flight call sign SWA-9010 from Phoenix,AZ to Burbank,CA (USA) with 116 people on board, was climbing out of Phoenix's runway 07L when the crew stopped the climb at about 12,000 feet reporting they needed to shut the left hand engine (CFM56) down following the failure of that engine. The aircraft returned to Phoenix for a safe landing on runway 08 about 20 minutes after departure. Emergency services inspected the aircraft and found some oil leaking off the left hand engine. There are conflicting data as to the flight number: According to FAA data the flight was WN-2683 from Phoenix to Burbank, the flight however is scheduled to fly to Tampa,FL (USA). According to other information the flight was WN-110, scheduled to depart Phoenix for Burbank around the same time. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 3 days 18 hours. https://avherald.com/h?article=50756248&opt=0 Incident: Lufthansa B748 over Atlantic on Apr 3rd 2023, hydraulic problems A Lufthansa Boeing 747-8, registration D-ABYG performing flight LH-462 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Miami,FL (USA), was enroute at FL340 over the Atlantic Ocean about to enter Oceanic Airspace about 220nm northwest of Shannon (Ireland) when the crew decided to return to Frankfurt due to a hydraulic problem. In consultation with dispatch a revised flight plan was issued for the return, the aircraft initially climbed to FL350 and advised they needed to dump fuel as they were too heavy for landing in Frankfurt and wanted to dump at altitude rather than later. The aircraft descended to FL310 for the fuel dump and was vectored onto a southerly heading before the coast of Ireland. After completing the fuel dump the aircraft turned towards Frankfurt and landed on Frankfurt's runway 07C with open gear doors about 2:40 hours after the decision to return to Frankfurt. The airline reported the aircraft returned to Frankfurt due to a technical problem. The passengers will continue to Miami today. https://avherald.com/h?article=50754d97&opt=0 Incident: SAS E195 at Paris on Apr 1st 2023, cabin did not pressurize A SAS Link Embraer ERJ-195, registration SE-RSN performing flight SK-1560 from Paris Charles de Gaulle (France) to Copenhagen (Denmark), was climbing out of Paris when the crew stopped the climb at FL260 due to problems with the cabin pressure and subsequently performed an emergency descent to FL100. The aircraft returned to Paris for a safe landing on Charles de Gaulle's runway 27L about 50 minutes after departure. A passenger reported the aircraft suffered the loss of cabin pressure. The aircraft is still on the ground in Paris about 40 hours after landing back. https://avherald.com/h?article=50752d39&opt=0 Incident: Transavia B738 near Amsterdam on Apr 1st 2023, computer failure A Transavia Boeing 737-800, registration PH-HZW performing flight HV-6569 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Salzburg (Austria), was enroute at FL410 about 180nm southeast of Amsterdam when the crew turned around and returned the aircraft to Amsterdam. The aircraft maintained FL340 for the return and landed safely on Amsterdam's runway 06 about 75 minutes after departure. A replacement Boeing 737-800 registration PH-HSB reached Salzburg with a delay of about 6 hours. A passenger reported the crew announced one of their computers had a failure and they were returning to Amsterdam. On the ground in Amsterdam the passengers were kept on board for about 3-4 hours while maintenance was attempting to resolve the problem, then they were told the plane needed to be swapped. https://avherald.com/h?article=507526b6&opt=0 Incident: American B738 at Merida on Apr 1st 2023, flaps problems on approach An American Airlines Boeing 737-800, registration N309PC performing flight AA-2929 from Dallas Ft. Worth,TX (USA) to Merida (Mexico), was on approach to Merida's runway 10 when the crew advised they had a system malfunction and needed to go around. The aircraft climbed back up to 11,000 feet, entered a hold, and after running their checklists the crew advised they had a flaps problem and declared emergency. The aircraft landed on Merida's runway 10 at a higher than normal speed (about 160 knots over ground) about 37 minutes after the go around. The aircraft is still on the ground in Merida about 35 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=50751bc2&opt=0 Bryan Burns Traces ACSF Growth in Members, Safety Programs Bryan Burns, Air Charter Safety Foundation Bryan Burns speaking at the 2023 ACSF Safety Symposium in March. Bryan Burns has steered the Air Charter Safety Foundation (ACSF) through its near infancy to a multi-faceted safety organization that offers a variety of safety programs to charter operators. He joined ACSF in 2010, two years after it was formally established, as executive director and later became president. He brought 30 years of fixed-base operation experience to his role at ACSF, serving as general manager for Signature Flight Support at the Washington Dulles and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airports and before that v-p of Jackson Hole Aviation and president of Vail Valley Jet Center in Eagle, Colorado. He was the recipient of the NBAA Dr. Tony Kern Aviation Professionalism Award in 2021 as well as the Flight Safety Foundation Business Aviation Meritorious Service Award in 2022. He discussed the evolution of ACSF with AIN. Talk a little about the history of the Air Charter Safety Foundation. The foundation was formed as a spinoff of NATA [the National Air Transportation Association] as a sister organization because of the large number of high-profile fatal accidents that were happening in the industry back in 2006 and 2007. The FAA was not happy with charter operator safety and said, “You guys have got to reach out to your charter members to fix this. This is just not acceptable.” That’s what triggered the Industry Audit Standard. [The late ACSF v-p operations] Russ [Lawton] developed the original [ACSF] Industry Audit Standard. Really, 90 percent of the foundation back in the day was doing audit standards. Literally, that was the purpose of it. How has the Air Charter Safety Foundation evolved? When I started with the foundation, we had 30 members, and literally, that consisted of our entire board. We are now over 300 today. So, when you talk about growth, you talk about exponentially where we're at. I think what's really driving a lot of that, if not the majority of it, is our Aviation Safety Action Program [ASAP, a non-punitive voluntary safety reporting initiative]. That's been kind of the staple that has [grown] from what initially began as our Industry Audit Standard. After ACSF was formed, it really concentrated on the Industry Audit Standard and really didn't even consider ASAP till five years later. How did you get involved with ASAP? [ACSF] evolved and we became a little bit more creative. We started thinking about why the Part 121 world has ASAP, but Part 91 does not and relatively few 135 were participating. That was a huge turning point in the foundation: creating the relationship not only with the FAA headquarters but more importantly the Flight Standards District Offices in the field, to become recognized as a third-party program manager for the ASAP program. Russ and I went around the nation literally talking to all the FSDOs and introducing the ASAP concept in the early stages [to the industry]. Like most things, word of mouth just kind of began in the industry and we promoted the heck out of it. And so, we created an entire—how would you say—ASAP industry that was never considered in the past to mitigate risk and move the safety needle. What’s been the result? We've got well over 278 of what we refer to as ASAP certificates. We're managing about 222 companies, but they have multiple certificates. We’re about split right now between Part 135 and 91. I think one of the major factors that validates everything we're doing in the ASAP space is that we have the FAA, especially in the FSDOs, reaching out to us to train their own inspectors on the ASAP program. The FAA has had its own challenges with attrition, staffing issues, and internally trying to keep inspectors current. We have built an enormous relationship with these folks to the point that there are times when they're referring operators to the Air Charter Safety Foundation if they want to start an ASAP program. So I mean, just back to the word of mouth is where it's coming from and the really solid trust relationship, this partnership, that truly makes it all work. Was there reluctance for operators to sign onto a voluntary safety reporting program? Russ and I always go back to 3M and Target, the Part 91 flight departments that really were the first to participate in the program even before 135 joined. We went around the country doing various regional forum presentations on the ASAP program. There absolutely was reluctance. There was the piece of why should we do this. However, we tapped into those folks [participating] and that started trickling into the system. We gave a venue [at our annual conference] to get operators that were participating in our ASAP program to tell the audience and the attendees the value and benefits of it. There wasn't any kind of directive that come out from the FAA. We just took the liberty of kind of growing it ourselves Flight data monitoring is, in my view, a very similar path that we're taking with the challenges of folks being concerned about Big Brother looking. These are all very similar challenges. You have to switch that conversation over to the impact it's having on enhancement in improving your operation from a safety component. It's the culture. And if you've got the right culture, it is hugely successful. With ASAP rolling and the Industry Audit Standard getting regular customers, what was next for ACSF? It led to what has now been a combination of the SMS [safety management system] program. As a component of ASAP, we were relying on many other commercial businesses that had SMS platforms, servers, and tools that we did not. Customer feedback, however, was “We would love to have one-stop shopping.” Basically, let's have everything reside under one server, under one platform. Because with all these programs, you have to make it simple in order for folks to participate. So that was another turning point for us a year ago or so. By allowing the SMS platform to be introduced, now folks can file a combination of SMS reports and ASAP reports, under our QuickBase server. That was a big add to our initiatives and programs. And then, what has been most recent in this past year has been flight data monitoring (FDM). We felt that was a natural evolution of the pathway to safety. If you look at all those steps [Industry Audit Standard, ASAP, SMS, and FDM], you are capturing a ton of data that analyzed properly and reviewed properly can improve what you're doing. I always look at that as peace of mind at the end of the day that you're doing everything through those channels to really manage your safety program as best as possible. Did the NTSB coordinate with you or ask you to take on these roles? No, never. Obviously, [former NTSB chair] Robert Sumwalt was very helpful with some direction and guidance. We just felt that it was right for our members. When it comes to recommendations and the terms the [NTSB] always uses after an accident, it is encouraging and promoting safety programs by looking at what historically has been the domestic airlines' safety record. The airlines have three things that typically small and medium-sized operators do not: time, money, and resources. So, the airlines have all these wonderful programs. Historically, everything we just talked about they've had for years. In a lot of these safety programs, there's the cost investment and you have members saying “Whoa, whoa, we’d love to participate, but who's going pay for that? How are we going to have time for this?” When you're a large mega operator, even the fractional companies that have hundreds of aircraft in their fleet and hundreds of employees, that works on a scale of an airline. When you've got two aircraft and a dozen employees, you need help if you're really going to truly apply these safety programs and initiatives properly and monitor them, police them, provide feedback, and corrective action improvement. The question has been how is this scalable to bring that to the Part 91 and Part 135 world? This has always been the challenge, and this is where the Foundation fits in. The Air Charter Safety Foundation comes in to try to help facilitate and manage. That's what made the ASAP program so successful, managing those programs as best we can. That’s what we’re trying to do with flight data monitoring—let us help you because you don't necessarily have the time and the resources internally to do this yourself. So that's the next phase. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2023-04-03/bryan-burns-traces-acsf-growth-members-safety-programs Amsterdam Schiphol Airport Plans Curfew, Private Jet Ban While environmentalism is an important topic across the aviation industry, the Dutch government is taking some drastic action. In mid-2022, plans were announced for a new “green” flight cap at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport, whereby the country’s aviation hub would permanently see the maximum number of annual flights reduced. We’ve now learned about some other changes coming to the airport, which will no doubt be controversial. Ruud Sondag, the CEO of Royal Schiphol Group, has announced plans for more restrictions to be introduced at Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. The intent is for this plan to help minimize noise around the airport: • Schiphol Airport will add a curfew by 2025, though the goal is to implement it earlier; takeoffs won’t be allowed from 12AM until 6AM, while landings won’t be possible from 12AM until 5AM • Schiphol Airport will ban private jets by 2025, in order to minimize traffic • Schiphol Airport wants to ban “noisy” aircraft, including the Boeing 747, by 2025, though exact details remain to be seen • Schiphol Airport won’t be getting an additional new runway, which was under consideration for quite some time According to research from the airport, these changes will result in 17,500 people living around the airport experiencing less “serious nuisance,” and it’s expected to result in 13,000 fewer “serious sleep disturbances.” The curfew is intended to eliminate 10,000 annual flights that would otherwise depart or arrive during those hours. Roughly half are operated by Air France-KLM low cost subsidiary Transavia. The night curfew would most impact Transavia My take on Amsterdam Schiphol Airport changes Let me start by saying that I think Amsterdam Schiphol Airport’s new “green” flight cap doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. This will simply harm airlines in the Netherlands and reduce Amsterdam’s global connectivity. Ultimately travelers will instead just connect through other hubs, and pollution is a global problem. If you ask me, it would make a lot more sense to create incentives for airlines to reduce their emissions, in the form of acquiring new aircraft, partnering on sustainable aviation fuel, etc. That being said, if you are going to create an annual flight cap, then these additional restrictions don’t seem unreasonable. Schiphol Airport will be shrinking rather than growing over the coming years: Most major hubs in Europe have a curfew, so Schiphol Airport is just matching the competition there; if you’re going to decrease annual flights, you might as well create a quiet period at night If there’s going to be an annual flight cap, it seems fair that private jets would be the first to get banned, so that as many people as possible can at least use the airport The topic of noise for people living around airports is also a tough one. On the one hand, I think if you choose to live somewhere near the airport, then you should expect that there will be noise. Furthermore, over the years aircraft have become significantly quieter, so I’d expect that people living near airports are dealing with less disruptive noise, rather than more disruptive noise. On the other hand, many people live near an airport because it’s cheapest and not because they necessarily want to, so if you can make the lives of those people better (especially with limited downside), then that seems like a win-win. Schiphol Airport will get less busy in years to come Amsterdam Schiphol Airport has announced plans to add a curfew at night, and to ban private jets. The curfew simply matches the policy you’ll find at many other major European airports. Meanwhile the private jet ban is something you won’t find at many airports. I don’t think the “green” flight cap makes much sense, but if there’s going to be a cap, then these latest initiatives seem like reasonable places to start cutting service. I’m curious to see how this all plays out. Ultimately if this is what the people of the Netherlands support, then that’s of course their prerogative, and anyone else doesn’t have much room to talk. However, there’s certainly not much precedent for something like this, and I’m curious what the implications of this are a decade down the road. https://onemileatatime.com/news/amsterdam-schiphol-airport-curfew-private-jet-ban/ Plane forced to make emergency stop during take-off after another aircraft crosses runway A close call with a private jet meant delays for ‘scared’ passengers A plane was forced to make an emergency stop during take-off after another aircraft crossed the runway. Delta Flight 1482 was heading down the runway at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International on Friday night when a private Learjet rolling on the tarmac got too close for comfort, leading the Delta Airbus A321 to come to a screeching halt, reports WVUE. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, the Learjet never crossed the “hold short line” but the air traffic controller cancelled take-off clearance for the Delta Airbus A321 out of an abundance of caution. One of the passengers, Dallas Richins, said: “It was the first time I’ve really been scared on an airplane – and I’ve landed in Tucson with a fire truck spraying foam – and it didn’t bother me as bad as last night.” The plane remained on the tarmac for close to 45 minutes before it returned to the gate to allow the aircraft’s brakes to cool down. Passengers could hear and feel the thump of shredded rubber from the plane’s tires, damaged during the emergency stop, according to Mr Richins. The experience didn’t get any easier following the incident, as travellers scrambled to rebook flights. “It was a disaster,” Mr Richins said. “I was on hold with Delta forever. Poor people, they didn’t have any staff there. So the flight attendants were rebooking people.” In a statement, Delta Airlines said: “Nothing is more important than the safety of our customers and people and we apologize to our customers for the inconvenience and delay of their travels.” https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/plane-abort-takeoff-emergency-stop-b2312997.html TSA officers prevent 5 guns from being carried on airplanes at Detroit Metropolitan Airport in 4 days 28 guns have been detected at DTW checkpoints in 2023 DETROIT – Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers prevented five guns from being carried onto Detroit Metropolitan Airport (DTW) airplanes in four days. The incident spans back to Thursday (March 30), with three of the five handguns being stopped in less than 90 minutes last weekend. One woman asked a TSA agent if he could give her something that he had forgotten that was on him (his gun) before being scanned. Three of the other four incidents occurred Friday (March 31) between 6:20 a.m. and 7:45 a.m., and the fourth on Sunday (April 2), when the X-ray screen was during the routine screening of some carry-on luggage. Police at the airport confiscated the loaded guns and cited the travelers. “Although it’s extremely troubling that so many passengers continue to make this careless, expensive mistake, the general public should feel safer knowing that the TSA officers in Detroit continue to perform their jobs exceptionally well and are stopping these firearms from going past the checkpoint,” said Michigan TSA Acting Federal Security Director Bill Byrne. “When dangerous items such as loaded guns are brought to a security checkpoint, it represents a serious security and safety concern. Remember that a concealed carry permit or enrollment in the TSA PreCheck program are not exemptions from this policy.” So far, including the five that have been confiscated, officials say 28 guns have been detected at DTW checkpoints. There were 100 guns confiscated in 2022 and 94 in 2021. Officials say the penalty for bringing weapons to the airport can go as high as $14,950. https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2023/04/03/tsa-officers-prevent-5-guns-from-being-carried-on-airplanes-at-detroit-metropolitan-airport-in-4-days/ UK airport scraps 100ml liquid rule with scanners London City Airport has scrapped the 100ml liquid limit by using high-tech scanners which also allow electronics to be kept in hand luggage at security. Travellers can now carry on up to two litres of liquid, and toiletries no longer have to be put in separate bags. It is the second UK airport to use this technology in all its security lanes, after Teesside introduced it in March. The government has set a June 2024 deadline for most UK airports to install the machines. London City Airport has brought in the C3 scanners which takes high-resolution 3D images of bags. Passengers at other airports currently have to remove items such as tablets, laptops and liquids from hand luggage for security checks. The current rules were introduced in November 2006, at the end of a ban on liquids in the cabin, when British police said they had foiled a plot to blow up as many as 10 planes using explosives hidden in drinks. London City Airport started trialling the new technology more than a year ago and went live with four of the new X-ray machines, similar to CT scanners used in hospitals, on Tuesday. Chief operating officer Alison FitzGerald said screening staff had been retrained to use the technology, which presents 3D imagery, and the public can be assured it is safe. Alison FitzGerald says the new system will speed up movement through the airport "The level of processing now through the X-ray is even more secure than it was previously and the machine has the ability to differentiate to between a non-dangerous and a dangerous liquid." The machine would still reject images it was not happy with, she said, but it would allow staff to focus on potential threats while allowing items such as water, shampoo and perfume to go through. It would also speed up the "door to gate" process with estimates of a 30% increase in passenger numbers, Ms FitzGerald added. "The whole process is quicker on the basis that previously you needed to empty your bag and put that in multiple trays whereas now it's one bag in one tray and you don't need to take everything out," she said. The current rules on liquids were introduced in November 2006 Which? consumer expert Harry Kind said while it was the "beginning of the end" of a system introduced 17 years ago, people should not assume it was a rule change across the board. "It's really important passengers actually check what the rules are for the airports they're flying from and flying to," he said. But crucially it should reduce waiting times. Many travellers reported delays of up to an hour at security, and in a recent Which? survey 7% said they had missed a flight because of queues, Mr Kind added. "This change will make a massive difference and reduce the number of people missing flights and losing out on their holidays just because they've got a too big bottle of shampoo." London City Airport was already the fastest of the UK airports it surveyed for security times, with an average of 12 minutes, he added. The largest of the UK's airports are rolling out the next generation technology on a gradual basis. Heathrow trialled 3D scanners in 2017 and said with more security lanes than any other airport installing the new machines was "always going to be complex and take longer". Gatwick is currently trialling one lane with next generation technology and a spokesperson said passengers should continue to follow all existing rules. Other airports told the BBC they had no specific date for completion but would be in line with the government deadline of June 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65163418 Emirates Will Send 5 Boeing 777s To Turkish Airlines For Maintenance The move could potentially position Emirates to ponder future collaborations with other airlines. Emirates IATA/ICAO Code: EK/UAE Airline Type: Full Service Carrier Hub(s): Dubai International Airport Year Founded: 1985 CEO: Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum Country: United Arab Emirates Dubai-based Emirates is turning to Turkish Airlines for maintenance and repair services for a handful of its Boeing 777 airplanes. On Monday, Turkish Airlines confirmed that Turkish Technic, the carrier's maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) arm, will provide the services. The company has already begun maintenance operations on one aircraft, with the others to start in the next few months. A senior Turkish Technic official said the collaboration with Emirates begins a long-lasting partnership. “Best-in-class” Emirates, which has the world's largest Boeing 777 fleet, has struck a deal with Turkish Technic, one of the world's biggest aircraft maintenance-repair service suppliers. Under the terms of the agreement, Turkish Technic will perform base maintenance services on five Emirates 777 aircraft. According to Turkish Airlines, the base maintenance operation of the first aircraft has already commenced at Turkish Technic's Istanbul Ataturk Airport (ISL) facilities on April 1st. The other aircraft within the scope of the agreement will also undergo maintenance operations at the same facility in the upcoming months. Mikail Akbulut, the CEO of Turkish Technic spoke about the new agreement. “We are delighted that Emirates has entrusted us with the base maintenance operations for five of their Boeing 777 aircraft. As a leading maintenance, repair and overhaul provider of comprehensive aircraft and component services, we are committed to delivering the best-in-class MRO services for our customers. We believe this agreement marks the beginning of a long-standing partnership with Emirates.” About Turkish Technic Turkish Technic is a one-stop MRO company providing maintenance, repair, overhaul, engineering, modification, tailor-made PBH, and reconfiguration services to many domestic and international customers at its state-of-the-art hangars in five locations across two continents. The company noted, "We conduct A, B, C, and D maintenance works for all aircrafts found in our capabilities through holding international maintenance certificates (EASA, FAA), latest tecnological equipments, a personnel count of more than 9,000 staff and with competent workers who are experts in their respective fields," Along with performing aircraft base maintenance services Turkish Technic provides various quality and reliable services such as aircraft painting, line maintenance and business jet maintenance, and cabin renewal. Additionally, the maintenance operations are rigorously conducted that suits its customer's needs and requests. A hint to joining an alliance? The new partnership between Star Alliance carrier Turkish Airlines and Emirates could be a sign of a future announcement from Emirates. Last week, the United Arab Emirates flag carrier started its codeshare partnership with Chicago-based United Airlines, also part of the Star Alliance. The codeshare agreement means that Emirates passengers flying to the US can access more than 150 destinations within United Airlines' extensive domestic network. According to Travel Daily, the Turkish Technic aircraft maintenance agreement signed just a few days after beginning the codeshare deal with United could be an indicator that Emirates may once again consider joining the Star Alliance. Emirates has previously collaborated with other airlines but is not currently a member of any of the three global airline alliances – oneworld, SkyTeam, or Star Alliance. https://simpleflying.com/emirates-send-5-boeing-777s-turkish-airlines-maintenance/ Passengers Sue Hawaiian Airlines: Turbulence Mass Injuries | Who’s Responsible? The news, investigations, and ongoing passenger concerns resulting from December’s Hawaiian Airlines mass casualty turbulence incident are not going away. The subject remains in everyone’s minds. BOH editor Collin flew twice in the past week on Hawaiian to and from the mainland. He reported turbulence in both directions that was “more noticeable on the way back. There were those times when there was a big drop coming into Maui, where the plane felt weightless for a moment. I was definitely thinking about that flight from December, and I was glad to be strapped in,” he said. Collin also reported that the flight attendants were vigilant about their enforcement regarding seat belts on his flights. As we previously reported, the plane was on approach to Honolulu and likely within 10 minutes of beginning its descent when the problem occurred. It is the time most likely, when safe, for passengers to use the lavatories one last time and to stow their cabin baggage. The law firm has dripped this case to the media. Seat belt enforcement wasn’t implemented. That simply was not done on this flight and that is what should’ve been done on this flight. And, if that had been done, then nobody would have been injured.” Nomaan Husain, attorney for victims. The attorney said they are still performing additional research before filing the lawsuit. He was also quoted as saying, “If they were aware of it (the turbulence), then what did they do about it? Did they ask the airline if they could deviate from the flight path? Or, did they just decide that they were going to continue on the flight path that was prepared so that they would remain on schedule? We have clients with broken bones. We have clients with herniated discs. We have clients with neck injuries, and back injuries. We have clients with concussions, which have now been diagnosed as mild traumatic brain injury.” Hawaiian Airlines facing the lawsuit. Who’s responsible? At least a dozen passengers who were onboard that December flight are readying a lawsuit. Media reported that the passengers and their famous law firm believed that pilots didn’t heed warnings of the bad weather at the time when the turbulence struck. In that incident, NTSB’s initially reported 25 passenger and crew injuries. That included six serious injuries and 20 in total, including an infant, taken to hospital in Honolulu. Husain Law and Associates has been hired to represent the victims. That company specializes in aviation lawsuits and is involved in the deadly Boeing 737 MAX suits. The founding partner in the firm, Nomaan Husain, claims that the Hawaiian Airlines pilots should have been aware of the inclement weather conditions at the time and had passengers buckled in when it occurred. Questions about Hawaiian Air HA35 turbulence event. 1. Did the National Weather Service properly warn aircraft in the area about the extreme wind conditions occurring on the ground and in the air? We can say that on the ground, the wind was far greater than what we had been warned about, and we were surprised to have planes taking off and landing in that. “It was the kind of gusts that knock you over,” said BOH editor Jeff. 2. To what degree was Hawaiian aware of the extreme weather that day? The following day, the company said it was aware of the weather forecast but had no specific warning as to extreme turbulence in that area. 3. Was the seatbelt sign illuminated at the time of the incident? 4. If the fasten seatbelt sign was on, was it being actively enforced by the cabin crew? 5. If the seatbelt sign was not on, had Hawaiian been made aware of any circumstances that would have warranted it being on? What Hawaiian Air pilots reported to NTSB. Hawaiian Air pilots on that flight reported to NTSB that conditions were smooth at the time, and they had no indication of severe weather on the plane’s radar. They said that a sudden and unavoidable vertical cloud arose directly in front of the A330 widebody, which did not provide any time to avoid the turbulence apparently associated with that cloud. Hawaiian also said that no other aircraft in the area reported any such turbulence before the event. Where was National Weather Service? We cannot access historical information about whatever aircraft warning had been initiated by NWS. It was reported to NTSB that the NWS had, in fact, warned of severe thunderstorms and that a subsequent review of the NWS radar did indicate extreme turbulence in the vicinity of the incident. Exactly what happened on Flight 35? On December 18, Flight 35 encountered extreme clear-air turbulence as it approached Honolulu for landing, The turbulence and the associated drop in altitude was such that passengers not buckled in hit both the luggage bins and the ceiling. Subsequently, due to the scope of the injuries, the crew called for all trained medical or emergency-trained passengers to help. The FAA says that turbulence is “air movement created by atmospheric pressure, jet streams, the air around mountains, cold or warm weather fronts or thunderstorms.” It can be completely unexpected and occur when the sky is totally clear. That notwithstanding, the FAA says that getting seriously injured in such events remains quite rare. In the 13 years ending 2021, there were only 146 severe injuries due to airline turbulence. That comes out to 11 total passengers per year. https://beatofhawaii.com/passengers-sue-hawaiian-airlines-turbulence-mass-injuries-whos-responsible/ IATA Launches New Drive To Strengthen Aviation In Africa The air transport authority has launched an initiative to promote the development and recovery of the African aviation industry. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is launching its "Focus Africa" initiative to expand the aviation industry's contribution to socio-economic development on the continent. Focus Africa will bring together public and private stakeholders to improve connectivity, safety, and reliability for African passengers. Aviation is critical in connecting people and services and can significantly boost a region's economic activity. Africa is a vast territory, home to about 1.4 billion people, nearly 20% of the world's population. However, its contribution to world air travel is very minimal, contributing about 2.1% of global passengers. IATA plans to leverage the continent's vastness to enhance connectivity, job opportunities, and growth offered by aviation. Challenges faced in Africa Africa's aviation sector is heavily underserved, lagging in development and economic activity. Slow adoption of global standards, high operating costs, lack of connectivity, regulatory restrictions, and shortage of skills all contribute to the underdevelopment of aviation around the continent. All these factors affect the passenger experience and the viability and sustainability of African airlines. The continent's carriers suffered cumulative losses of $3.5 billion between 2020 and 2022, and IATA predicts further losses of up to $213 million this year. IATA Regional Vice President for Africa and the Middle East said in a media briefing: "Many airports in Africa have systems and processes which do not offer a good passenger experience. Another shortcoming that we've noticed is Africa as a continent also has the slowest adoption of passenger Data API programs, with only a handful of governments that have implemented passenger data programs. When implemented using industry guidance and best practices, they can strengthen first of all borders, of course, but also support airports and governments to move towards advanced processing capabilities." Check out more African aviation news here. Utilizing opportunities in Africa Sustainable intra-Africa and global connectivity are critical for bringing people together and creating investment opportunities. These align with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) for Africa of lifting 50 million people out of poverty by 2030. Africa has a solid foundation to promote aviation's contribution towards its development. Trade and tourism rely on aviation to create jobs, reduce poverty, and boost economic activity. Pre-COVID aviation supported 7.7 million jobs and $63 billion in economic activity around the continent. IATA projects demand to triple over the next twenty years. Many of the challenges faced in Africa are uniquely African and require African solutions. Through strategic planning and outstanding leadership, many of these problems can be solved in a heartbeat. RwandAir CEO Yvonne Manzi Makolo is the new Chair of the IATA Board of Governors (2023-2024), making her the first African and female to hold this position. Looking at RwandAir's success, her leadership will promote the association's focus on Africa and will be an opportunity to solve many challenges faced in the industry. Yvonne Makolo said in the press briefing attended by Simple Flying; “Africa stands out as the region with the greatest potential and opportunity for aviation. The Focus Africa initiative renews IATA’s commitment to supporting aviation on the continent. As the incoming Chair of the IATA Board of Governors, and the first from Africa since 1993, I look forward to ensuring that this initiative gets off to a great start and delivers benefits that are measurable.” Six critical areas Focus Africa is not just an initiative invented by IATA and being prescribed for Africa, it is being defined through extensive consultation and by the key policies that characterize the industry. Innovation is critical for African aviation and by overcoming challenges, airlines will be able to accelerate their growth. The challenges being faced in the industry can be fixed and put it on a path of fast recovery. Traffic in Africa is expected to grow rapidly over the next few years. IATA Director General Willie Walsh said; "The limiting factors on Africa’s aviation sector are fixable. The potential for growth is clear. And the economic boost that a more successful African aviation sector will deliver has been witnessed in many economies already. With Focus Africa, stakeholders are uniting to deliver on six critical focus areas that will make a positive difference. We’ll measure success and will need to hold each other accountable for the results.” The regulatory authority will focus on these six critical areas: • Improvement of operational safety through critical analysis and collaborations to reduce accidents in the aviation sector. • The development of effective, efficient and transparent aviation infrastructure to enhance the customer experience. • The promotion of the Single African Air Transport Market (SAATM) to enhance inta-Africa air travel. • Implementation of secure and transparent monetary services. • Assisting Africa in achieving the industry's goals of net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. • Promotion of aviation careers and assuring that skills remain and are used in Africa. • The opportunity for development is present, and it starts with addressing these ideas. According to IATA, the aviation market is recovering faster than the industry at large. Instead of focussing on the industry's underdevelopment, the board suggests that it is time to act and accelerate economic growth. The right time for action Africa continues on the path to recovery from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Air cargo is 31.4% over 2019 levels and air travel is 93% of pre-pandemic levels. A good example is the Tanzanian aviation sector which edged very close to pre-pandemic levels in 2022. https://simpleflying.com/iata-launches-african-aviation-focus/ Call for Nominations For 2023 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- The Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Foundation is now accepting nominations for the 2023 Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award, honoring a leader in global aviation safety. The Award will be presented during the 76th Annual International Air Safety Summit, taking place November 6-8 in Paris, France. Presented annually since 1956, the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award recognizes notable achievement in the field of civil or military aviation safety in method, design, invention, study, or other improvement. The Award's recipient is selected for a "significant individual or group effort contributing to improving aviation safety, with emphasis on original contributions," and a "significant individual or group effort performed above and beyond normal responsibilities." Mechanics, engineers, and others outside of top administrative or research positions should be especially considered. The contribution need not be recent, especially if the nominee has not received adequate recognition. Nominations that were not selected as past winners may be resubmitted for consideration in subsequent years. Please note that self-nominations will not be considered. The Award Committee, composed of leaders in the field of aviation, meets each year to conduct a final review of nominees and selection of the current year's recipient. Please help us identify and honor this year's most deserving recipient. Nominations, including a 1-to-2-page narrative, can be submitted via the Laura Taber Barbour Foundation website at http://ltbaward.org/the-award/nomination-form/. Nominations will be accepted through June 2, 2023. For more information, including a complete history of Award recipients, see www.ltbaward.org. About the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Foundation and Award The Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award's story dates back more than 75 years. On April 14, 1945, after visiting family in Pittsburgh, Laura Taber Barbour was aboard a Pennsylvania Central Airlines DC-3 when it crashed into the rugged terrain of Cheat Mountain near Morgantown, West Virginia. All passengers and crew were killed. In 1956 her husband, Dr. Clifford E. Barbour and son, Clifford E. Barbour, Jr., in close association with The Flight Safety Foundation, established the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award in her honor. For the past 65 years, this distinguished award recognizing outstanding achievements in aviation safety worldwide has been presented at Flight Safety Foundation’s International Aviation Safety Summit. In 2013, The Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Foundation was formed as an independent non-profit charitable organization composed of members of the Award Board, the aviation community, and the Barbour family. In addition to the annual presentation of the award, in 2019 the Foundation initiated a scholarship program that supports worthy students pursuing professional aviation studies. As the Foundation broadens its scope, the Laura Taber Barbour Air Safety Award will continue to recognize those who significantly contributed to aviation safety. For more information on the Foundation, the award, and past winners, visit http://LTBAward.org Share your knowledge and experience at 2023 CHC Safety & Quality Summit. Call for Papers is now open for 2023 CHC Safety & Quality Summit. Theme: Reset 2024: Developing New Safety Mindsets Submission Deadline: May 21, 2023 Much has changed in the past five years. Energy prices have collapsed, then spiked; customers have deferred, then ramped, production. We have grappled with global pandemic and now war in Ukraine. We have welcomed new market entrants in response to a changing environment and changing importance of sustainability. The offshore helicopter industry has had to adapt – quickly - to meet changing demands. As the pace of change has accelerated, it has sparked a state of permacrisis with little time to regroup. Simultaneously, the accident rate has accelerated, from an all-time low in 2019/20, to 12 fatal accidents and 18 lives lost in 2022. Were we distracted, complacent, without the focus and resources? How do we enhance safety, succession and sustainability in a dynamic industry? The CHC Safety & Quality Summit 2023 now calls for papers to address these challenges. Please submit abstracts for consideration on the following topics: 1. New safety performance mindsets. A persistent safety management challenge is the changing human habit. Understanding safety relies on understanding the brains and behaviours at the heart of the flight system. We know the value of a safety management system lies in the willingness and openness of our teams to reflect, learn and change, time and time again. What new insights can we draw from human neurology and psychology to keep the person at the centre of safety, resilience and safety management practice? 2. New talent requirements and the next generation. There are numerous dynamics that stymie recruitment and retention: an experienced but ageing employee population, remuneration limitations, entrants’ skills gaps, changing workplace expectations and persistent poor performance in regard to diversity and inclusion. Are our organisations fit for purpose? What is our succession plan to ensure the safety and quality of our industry in 2024 and beyond? The CHC Safety &Quality Summit will take place in Vancouver, BC, Canada on 14 - 16 November, 2023. Most sessions during the three-day conference will be for 90 minutes. Individual sessions typically attract between 20 to 60 people. Submissions should include proposed session titles, descriptions or outlines, objectives and audience benefits, presenter bibliographies, and contact details. Please send your submission online via links on this page. We look forward to hearing from you by 21 May 2023. Note: Any type of vendor promotions or marketing pitch will not be accepted. Reminder: A valid passport & visa (if applicable) are required to enter Canada and attend the CHC Safety & Quality Summit. Don’t delay – apply or renew your passport & visa today. To submit an abstract, click on the project link below: SUBMIT ABSTRACT Submit Ab Sincerely, CHC Safety & Quality Summit Committee summit@CHCheli.com If you no longer want to receive emails from CHC Safety & Quality Summit Committee, please choose to Opt-Out. Curt Lewis