April 19, 2023 - No. 016 In This Issue : FAA Proposes New Airworthiness Directive For Boeing 747-8 Aircraft : Antonov Airlines aims to transfer operations base to Leipzig : Army, Air National Guard Need a Strategy for Better Helicopter Safety, GAO Says : Boeing resumes 767F deliveries after three-month hiatus : Boeing 767F, KC-46A face fuel tank issue; no impact on receiver aircraft : Here’s why USAF put B-52 and B-1B Strategic Bombers on a Giant Trestle Excursion Recovery Goes Wrong At Aspen : When is the best time to take an oil sample from my aircraft engine? FAA Proposes New Airworthiness Directive For Boeing 747-8 Aircraft BY SUMIT SINGH PUBLISHED 4 DAYS AGO The proposal relate to cracks in stringers. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Boeing 747-8 models. According to a notice issued on April 6th, the matter relates to both 747-8i and 747–8F series aircraft. Cracks reported As per the Federal Register, the FAA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) following the reporting of “cracks in stringers, common to the end fittings, forward and aft of the pressure bulkhead at station (STA) 2360 at multiple stringer locations.” The FAA added: “This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of stringer sidewalls and certain stringer assemblies, common to the end fittings, forward and aft of the pressure bulkhead at STA 2360 for any crack, and applicable on-condition actions.” Stringers are often mistakenly referred to as their structural counterparts, longerons. They run longitudinally across the fuselage or spanwise of an aircraft wing. They are structural parts that shift loads and stresses from the plane’s skin to its formers. The agency summarized that it proposes addressing what it calls an unsafe condition. It has asked for comments on the matter but May 22nd. A word from Boeing Simple Flying reached out to Boeing for comment on the situation. The company replied with the following statement: “We support the proposed rule, which would align with guidance we shared with our customers in 2021 and 2022.” FAA Proposes New Airworthiness Directive For Boeing 747-8 Aircraft Antonov Airlines aims to transfer operations base to Leipzig 12 / 05 / 2022 By Sophie Barnes Heavylift and Project Forwarding International Antonov Airlines is aiming to transfer its operations base to Leipzig, Germany, following the damage and destruction of some of its aircraft and its home base in Kyiv. In a presentation provided to the Worldwide Project Consortium (WWPC), which is holding its 20th annual membership conference this week in Vienna, Antonov confirmed the scale of damage following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The airline’s home base at Kyiv-Antonov airport in Hostomel has been destroyed, as has the AN-225, an AN-74 and an AN-26-100 aircraft. One AN-124 and one AN-22A are damaged at the airport, with their condition under evaluation. The Antonov team has been able to relocate to Leipzig from where the company plans to continue the operation of its remaining five AN-124-100 aircraft. To do this, the airline said it needs to transfer a full-scale base to the airport; deliver the spare engines, parts and other special equipment from Ukraine; source Western versions of the units where possible; and transfer technical specialists, flight personnel and key office employees to Leipzig. The airline said that in recent weeks it has been carrying out flights to Europe, North America, Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia and Australia. The carrier has been carrying out flights worldwide, the airline is prioritising flights for the Ukrainian government, NATA/EU under the SALIS programme and humanitarian missions but there is the possibility of handling commercial flights. Antonov estimates that in the next 12 months it will conduct 385 flights, with 1,270 landings. Antonov Airlines aims to transfer operations base to Leipzig Army, Air National Guard Need a Strategy for Better Helicopter Safety, GAO Says April 12, 2023 | By David Roza Note: See photographs in the original article. The Army and Air National Guard need to sharpen their strategies for promoting safety and mitigating risk in helicopter units, the Government Accountability Office wrote in a report released April 12. From fiscal year 2012 to 2021, there have been 298 accidents involving National Guard helicopters during noncombat flights. The GAO determined many of these accidents were caused by human error, with broader institutional issues that also need to be addressed. Though some of the GAO’s report and recommendations apply more to the Army National Guard than the Air National Guard, the common ones include not routinely evaluating processes for preflight risk assessment; overworking unit safety officers; and pilots not getting enough flight hours due to lack of maintenance, funding, staffing, or other organizational shortfalls. The report comes in the wake of two deadly Army helicopter accidents that occurred earlier this year. The first occurred in February when a Tennessee Army National Guard Black Hawk helicopter crashed during a training sortie in Alabama. The second occurred in March when two Black Hawks from the 101st Airborne Division crashed in Kentucky. Two Soldiers were killed in the first crash, while nine were killed in the second. Though both the Army and Air National Guard have a range of safety and risk reduction measures, the components can do more to make sure those measures are being implemented effectively, the GAO report states. The Data Of the 298 helicopter accidents reported by Army and Air National Guard from 2012 through 2021, 45 were serious Class A or Class B accidents that involved death, permanent disability, prolonged hospitalization, or more than $500,000 in damages—40 involving Army National Guard helicopters, five involving Air National Guard helicopters.. The worst of those accidents killed 28 Guardsmen. The discrepancy between the Army and Air Force Guards is likely due in part to the difference in flying hours between the two components—the Army National Guard flies helicopters for an average of 200,000 hours per year, while the ANG averages 3,500 flying hours. The Army National Guard also flies more types of helicopters, whereas the GAO report studied only the HH-60 Pave Hawk on the Air National Guard side. Army National Guard helicopter accident rates were below those of the Army Active-Duty component, while the Air National Guard accident numbers were too small to make a meaningful comparison with its Active-Duty counterpart. When the Army or the Air Force investigate an accident, the services look to see if it may have been caused by human error, material failure, environmental factors, or any combination of the three. Human error was listed as a contributing factor in most of the accidents, the GAO found. On the Army side, investigators detected that not following training procedures, a lack of situational awareness, and overconfidence contributed to many accidents, while on the Air Force side, “wrong choice of action during an operation” and “inadequate real-time risk assessment” were the most commonly cited factors. The data informed GAO’s recommendations for how to more effectively implement safety and risk reduction measures. What’s Going Wrong The GAO found that while the Air National Guard has a stringent process for documenting the implementation of safety recommendations made after helicopter accident investigations, the Army National Guard has no such system. Creating such a system was the GAO’s first Army-specific recommendation. Another Army-specific recommendation was to regularly evaluate National Guard helicopter aircrew performance during training, also something the Air National Guard does. An HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopter from the 210th Rescue Squadron, Alaska Air National Guard, practices “touch and go” maneuvers at Bryant Army Airfield on Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Dec. 17, 2014. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Sgt. Edward Eagerton) Other GAO recommendations applied to both the Army and Air National Guard, such as a direction that the components both need to make sure their helicopter units continuously evaluate and update their risk management worksheets. Aircrews use risk management worksheets to gauge risk levels and mitigation strategies before a flight and, if necessary, receive approval for the flight from higher up the chain of command. The flaw in the system is neither Army nor Air National Guard helicopter units regularly update their worksheets to reflect lessons learned in safety and risk reduction. Service officials were hesitant to develop standardized worksheets for all units due to the diversity of aircraft and mission sets across the force, but Air Force officials said making sure those worksheets are continuously updated could be part of the service’s unit inspection program. The GAO also found that unit safety officers in both the Army and Air National Guard were “hindered due to workload and staffing imbalances.” Between conducting safety briefings, analyzing hazards, coordinating with other safety organizations, recording accidents, and their regular flying duties, unit safety officers have a lot on their plates, and many who spoke with the GAO said they could better support safety if it was their primary duty or they were assigned to the role full-time. “They will not let you just be the safety guy; you will always have additional duties,” one safety officer told the report authors. The GAO found neither the Army nor Air National Guard have a consistent approach to staffing safety officers, though the Air Force Safety Directorate has recommended wing commanders assign full-time personnel to the wing Chief of Safety position. The report also found that both Army and Air National Guard helicopter units suffer from low flying hours. On average, Army helicopter pilots did not meet the proficiency goal of 9 flight hours per month for the majority of helicopter types, while Air Force helicopter pilots often fall short of their goal of 12.5 hours per month. Many factors contribute to the low hours. In some cases, Army and Air National Guard units used up most of their annual flying hours at the start of the year, often assisting with state and regional emergency support, which meant they could not fly as much through the rest of the year. In other cases, finding time to fly was difficult to juggle for pilots with full-time jobs. To make matters worse, Guard units often do not have enough funding to bring in pilots for more hours, and they also struggle with maintenance and parts availability, all of which makes scheduling part-time pilots more difficult. There are also not many instructor pilots to go around, and the same problem applies to non-pilot aircrew, who are often essential for safe or realistic training. Flying hours also rely on maintenance hours, which is another pain point for many Guard units. The GAO found that no Army National Guard helicopter type met its annual mission capable goals from fiscal year 2017 to 2021, while the Air National Guard Pave Hawk missed its goals in fiscal year 2017 and 2019. Air National Guardsmen told the GAO that two-shift maintenance operations are required for helicopter units, but they do not have enough people to staff both shifts. Finally, Guard helicopter pilots often have trouble accessing simulators to meet flying hour goals and provide training even through bad weather and maintenance hiccups. The Air Force’s only Pave Hawk simulator available to Air National Guard pilots is at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. Fixing It Though the Army and Air National Guard have taken steps to address these challenges, their actions remain incomplete, GAO wrote, and neither component has established clear priorities to address the challenges preventing Guard helicopter pilots from reaching their flying hour goals. Nor do either of the components have comprehensive data for monitoring progress. “The challenges are complex and require a coordinated approach to ensure that any resource adjustments are supportable and are aligned with priorities,” the GAO wrote. “By developing a comprehensive strategy that defines goals, priorities, and performance measures, the Army and Air Force would be better positioned to address the complex and inter-related challenges that have hindered National Guard helicopter pilots from achieving their training objectives.” The GAO recommended the Army and Air National Guard: • Implement measures to make sure helicopter units continuously evaluate and update operational risk management worksheets. • Assess the resource and workload allocations of safety personnel to ensure helicopter units have enough staff and resources to implement operational flight safety programs. • Develop a comprehensive strategy including goals and performance measures for challenges that hinder helicopter pilot training. Army, Air National Guard Need a Strategy for Better Helicopter Safety, GAO Says Boeing resumes 767F deliveries after three-month hiatus BY RYTIS BERESNEVICIUS 2023-04-05 Boeing has resumed deliveries of the Boeing 767F, delivering the first aircraft of the type after a three-month hiatus due to a fuel tank issue. FedEx Express received its first 767F of the year on March 24, 2023. The airline took delivery of the aircraft, registered as N283FE, and ferried one of its hubs, Indianapolis International Airport (IND), from Everett Paine Field (PAE) on flight FX9030. The freighter first flew on January 8, 2023. The cargo carrier took delivery of another Boeing 767F on April 4, 2023. The wide-body freighter, registered as N282FE also flew on flight FX9030 between PAE and IND. It first flew on March 25, 2023. Boeing was forced to suspend deliveries of the 767F and the KC-46, a military aircraft based on the 767, due to an issue with the aircraft’s central wing fuel tank in January 2023. A supplier of the part reported the issue to Boeing, stating that it had not followed the correct cleaning and paint adhesion testing procedures on the fuel tank. The Air Current first reported on the issue in March 2023. While not a critical safety issue, the failure to properly paint and prime the fuel tank could result in clogged fuel filters and restrict the flow of fuel to the aircraft’s engines. An Air Mobility Command spokesperson told AeroTime in a statement in March 2023 that an “Initial assessment has not identified any immediate safety risk to the fleet”. The spokesperson added that “there have been no documented instances of fuel contamination caused by non-conforming tank primer on KC-46A aircraft”. According to ch-aviation.com data, two more Boeing 767Fs are scheduled for delivery shortly, namely, an UPS Airlines 767F, registered as N378UP, which made its first flight on April 4, 2023, and Air Tanzania’s first 767F, registered as 5H-TCO. The African carrier’s freighter operated a test flight using the flight code BOE300, departing and arriving at PAE on March 19, 2023. Boeing’s Orders & Deliveries data shows, as of February 28, 2023, that the manufacturer has 55 unfilled orders for the 767F. Boeing resumes 767F deliveries after three-month hiatus Boeing 767F, KC-46A face fuel tank issue; no impact on receiver aircraft BY CLEMENT CHARPENTREAU 2023-03-09 Boeing notified operators in January 2023 that it had detected an issue with the paint primer used by a supplier in the central wing fuel tank of some KC-46A Pegasus and 767-300F aircraft. According to The Air Current, which first reported on the issue, Boeing has not fulfilled aircraft deliveries to commercial operators over the past several months. The problem could also have consequences reaching far beyond the Boeing 767 family of aircraft. Only three aircraft have been delivered between December 2022 and March 9, 2023, namely Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 63141, a 767F to FedEx (registered as N284FE), MSN 63140 also to FedEx (N285FE), and a KC-46 to the USAF, registered as 20-46073, per planespotters.net data. Boeing’s Orders & Deliveries data showcased that two 767Fs were handed over to FedEx in December 2022, with no aircraft of the type delivered to customers in 2023, according to the manufacturer’s data up to January 31, 2023. In total, Boeing has 55 unfilled orders for the 767F. Meanwhile, there are 13 MSNs that are slated for delivery, as shown by planespotters.net data. Out of these, only one flew recently, namely N283FE, a FedEx 767F. The wide-body freighter operated two flights in January 2023, departing and landing at Everett Paine Field (PAE) on January 8 and January 10, 2023. An Air Tanzania Boeing 767F was spotted with its livery painted at PAE. “We will deliver airplanes as we complete rework and we are not changing our overall delivery plans for the year,” Boeing told Flight Global. “Our engineering analysis to date is that the issue is not an immediate safety of flight concern.” Boeing 767F, KC-46A face fuel tank issue; no impact on receiver aircraft Here’s why USAF put B-52 and B-1B Strategic Bombers on a Giant Trestle By Dario Leone Apr 6 2023 Note: See photographs in the original article. Due to their higher flight altitude and nuclear payload, SAC bombers were the primary object of the tests, but fighters, transport aircraft and even missiles were also tested for EMP hardness on Trestle. The Kirtland AFB Trestle Facility is arguably one of the largest all wood structures in the world, an engineering marvel and a landmark of the Cold War. The reason for the Trestle and its all wood design was to test the effects of electromagnetic pulse, generated during a nuclear explosion, on operational aircraft. The Trestle was built from 1972 to 1980 and the designer and structural engineer on the project was Robert Krause. Developments in the field of atomic weapons during the 1940s helped lay the foundations for the Cold War, and it was under this perceived threat of a potential nuclear attack on American soil that Sandia National Laboratories devised their own playground for testing the latest advancements in weapon design. Scientists here were not primarily concerned with the issue of radioactive fallout; their concern was to develop technology that wouldn’t be affected by a different aspect of a nuclear explosion. According to the article ATLAS-I – Top secret EMP testing site appeared on Abandoned Spaces, to test this kind of technology a top-secret testing facility, code-named Trestle, was built close to Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB), on the southeast of the city of Albuquerque in New Mexico. The facility formal name is rather long, though clearly depicts its use: Air Force Weapons Lab Transmission-Line Aircraft Simulator (ATLAS-I). ATLAS-I was a matchless testing contraption for the effects of electromagnetic pulses (EMPs) of damaging radiation. It was devised during the 1970s and was the most advanced non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse generator in the world. The idea behind this contraption is as follows; upon entering outer space, during high altitude flight, or around particle accelerators and nuclear reactors, a certain amount of high energy electromagnetic and particle radiation is present. And, crucially during the Cold War, EMPs of these types are generated by a nuclear explosions. This amount of radiation causes malfunctioning in electronic components, thus the components need to be ‘radiation-hardened’ in order to remain functioning. This can be through manufacturing processes, for example using non-standard electronic chips based on insulating materials; by physically shielding electronic components; and through software programming. ATLAS-I was designed to test the radiation-tolerance of different component designs and materials. According to Wikipedia, the facility was built at a cost of $60 million and was composed of two parts: a pair of powerful Marx generators capable of simulating the electromagnetic pulse effects of a high-altitude nuclear explosion (HANE) of the type expected during a nuclear war, and a giant wooden trestle built in a bowl-shaped arroyo, designed to elevate the test aircraft above ground interference and orient it below the pulse in a similar manner to what would be seen in mid-air. Trestle is the world’s largest structure composed entirely of wood and glue laminate. The primary wooden structure of Trestle was 1,000 feet long, 125 feet (about 12 stories) tall, and constructed of 6.5 million board-feet of lumber, sufficient to support a fully loaded B-52 (then the largest and heaviest strategic bomber in the US inventory) while also minimizing any chance of interference from the ground or the structure itself, creating a reasonable simulation of airborne conditions. A mix of Douglas Fir and Southern Yellow Pine were used for the timbers, as both showed excellent EMP transparency with the former having the best tensile strength and the latter the best weather resistance. By using an all glued laminated timber structure and woodworking joints to mate the giant timbers, with the joints being held together with wooden bolts and nuts, measurements from the EMP tests would not be skewed by large amounts of ferrous material in the structure. Some metal was used in the construction as critically loaded joints incorporated a circular steel sheer ring that surrounded the wooden bolt clamping the joint. Even the fire escape along one side of the trestle and the whole of the extensive fire suppression piping were constructed of fiberglass. Due to their higher flight altitude and nuclear payload, Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombers [such as the B-1B] were the primary object of the tests, but fighters, transport aircraft and even missiles were also tested for EMP hardness on Trestle. In addition to electronics survivability tests, numerous sensors located inside, beneath and to the sides of the aircraft would gather additional data on the airframe’s EMP permeability to be used in design considerations for future Cold War aircraft and to identify areas which needed additional EM hardening. The ATLAS-I program was shut down after the end of the Cold War in 1991, which brought an end to destructive EMP testing of aircraft, being replaced by far cheaper computer simulations as technology improved. Today the wooden trestle structures are all still standing and it remains the biggest metal-free wood laminate structure in the world. The trestle has, however, become a significant fire hazard since the creosote-soaked wood has dried considerably in the desert conditions and the automatic fire sprinkler system was deactivated in 1991. Efforts are underway to secure the funding necessary to have the structure protected as a national historic landmark, although efforts are complicated by the top secret nature of the Sandia/Kirtland facility it is situated on. The trestle structure is still easily visible from commercial aircraft landing and taking off from Albuquerque International Sunport, lying about one mile to the southeast of the threshold of Runway 26. Photo credit: U.S. Air Force Here’s why USAF put B-52 and B-1B Strategic Bombers on a Giant Trestle Excursion Recovery Goes Wrong At Aspen By Russ Niles April 5, 2023 Note: See event video in the original article. The owner of a Falcon 900 probably thought the worst thing that could happen on April 2 was a runway excursion at Aspen Pitkin Airport, but he or she would have been wrong. The bad day got worse when, in an attempt to clear the only runway, the nosegear was torn off the top-of-the-line business jet. Whoever was in charge of the recovery effort brought in a large snowplow to try to tow it out with a line attached to the nosegear. The airplane appears to have been mired in soft ground at the side of Runway 15/33. After a couple of attempts, the nosegear gave and the nose fell to the ground. The plane was on a flight from Boca Raton and landed at Aspen in the middle of a busy Sunday afternoon. There were no injuries when it left the runway but the resulting closure of the runway affected numerous commercial and private flights with people trying to get home after their weekend mountain getaway. The big 12-seat tri-jet is owned by JDR Management, of Boca Raton. Excursion Recovery Goes Wrong At Aspen When is the best time to take an oil sample from my aircraft engine? By Ben Visser · April 16, 2023 Reader Rob Jacoby recently sent a question to Paul McBride, the General Aviation News engines expert: I enjoyed reading your article, A simple check to see if your aircraft engine is manufacturing metal, especially the part about oil sampling. But I have a question: You mention taking the oil sample while the engine has been just shut down (warm) at the midway point. I usually take my oil analysis samples when the engine is cold. The logic is that all the oil has drained, and the volume removed should be a bit better. Should I sample midway? Paul turned the question over the our oils expert Ben Visser, who gives this answer: The reason we recommend sampling while the engine is warm is that when allowed to cool down, the heavy particles in the oil tend to settle to the bottom and are concentrated in the initial oil out the drain. If you take the sample on the first oil out, the readings will usually be higher than is representative of the oil change. By midway, much of the contaminates, like water, have all drained out. By taking a sample midway through the drain with the oil still warm, you should get a more representative sample and indication of the condition of your engine. When is the best time to take an oil sample from my aircraft engine? Curt Lewis