Flight Safety Information December 23, 2010 - No. 262 In This Issue FAA Wants To Fine American Eagle, Continental Stowaway case highlights security risks Baggage man asleep in plane's cargo hold Navy helicopter pilots busted for Lake Tahoe prank EASA warns A330 crews: Check speeds if autopilot disengages FAA Wants To Fine American Eagle, Continental WASHINGTON FAA is proposing more than $600,000 in fines against Continental Airlines and American Eagle Airlines for allegedly operating aircraft that were not in compliance with the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) as a result of mechanics failing to follow proper procedures, Each carrier has 30 days from receipt of FAA's enforcement letter to respond to the agency. Continental is faced with a proposed fine of $275,000 for operating two Boeing 737-900ERs on 73 revenue flights while the aircraft were out of compliance. FAA alleges that Continental mechanics failed to follow the 737 Airplane Maintenance Manual (AMM) when they installed incorrect main landing gear wheel-tire assemblies on two aircraft and released them for service on Nov. 7 and Nov. 19, 2009. According to FAA, the AMM specifically instructs mechanics not to use wheel-tire assemblies intended for the Boeing 737-700/-800/-900 on the heavier -900ER because of the possibility of damage to the aircraft or injury to people working on and around the aircraft. The proposed fine against American Eagle is $330,000 for operating a non-compliant Embraer ERJ-135 on 12 revenue passenger flights. FAA alleges that American Eagle mechanics failed to note broken passenger seats and armrests on two aircraft during a Dec. 18, 2008, inspections, and did not follow approved maintenance manual instructions during those inspections. FAA said its inspectors discovered seats on two aircraft that would not raise and stow into the upright and locked position for takeoffs and landings. The agency's inspectors also found damaged center arm rests that would not stow correctly. In addition, FAA alleges that American Eagle used one of the two aircraft on 12 revenue flights between the inspection and the eventual repair of the seats and armrests. The other aircraft did not fly again until the airline completed the required work, FAA said. http://www.aviationweek.com/ Back to Top Stowaway case highlights security risks By Alan Levin, USA TODAY The bizarre case of a 16-year-old boy who died after sneaking aboard a US Airways jet by hiding in its wheel well highlights long-standing concerns about airport security and terrorism, say law enforcement officials and security experts. Police initially suspected that Delvonte Tisdale, whose battered body was found Nov. 15 in a quiet suburban Boston neighborhood, had been murdered. But an investigation concluded that Tisdale somehow got onto the grounds of his hometown airport, Charlotte Douglas International, and climbed into the wheel well of a Boeing 737 bound for Boston. Norfolk County (Mass.) District Attorney William Keating says not only did Tisdale's body and clothing land directly beneath the path of the jet in the area where pilots would have lowered the landing gear in preparation for landing, but investigators also found a palm print that they believe was his in the jet's wheel compartment. Keating, who recently won a seat in Congress, says after he is sworn in next month that he intends to ask for a broader investigation into whether airport security is adequate to prevent terrorists getting access to planes. "Aside from the tragedy, it was a serious breach of security at an airport," Keating says. "What if someone else had had a more sinister motive?" Douglas Laird, a security consultant who formerly headed security at Northwest Airlines, says that the breach suggested multiple breakdowns in security. First, Tisdale was able to sneak onto the airport grounds, which are surrounded by fencing topped by barbed wire. Many workers and vehicles come and go from an airport, but they are supposed to show identification at checkpoints. Then, it is likely that Tisdale would have encountered airport employees while making his way to the plane during a busy early evening period, Laird says. Federal rules require airport workers to confront and challenge anyone they see on a tarmac without a security badge. "It's very troublesome," Laird says of the incident. "In theory that shouldn't happen." Most are international The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has counted 86 stowaways since 1947 - not including Tisdale's case - the vast majority of them since the late 1990s. Since 1996, there have been nearly five instances a year around the world. Most are residents of poor nations who are trying to get to Europe or the USA. According to the FAA data, the only previous report that someone had stowed away in a wheel well at a U.S. airport was the 1972 case of a man who flew from San Diego to New York. His frozen body was found after the jet landed, says FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown. However, Laird's experience suggests that the FAA may not know about every incident. While he was working at Northwest during the early 1990s, he investigated the case of a man who snuck into a McDonnell Douglas DC-10 at a U.S. airport. The case is not included in the FAA records. Amazingly, a sizeable number of stowaways survive the experience, even though temperatures at cruising altitudes get as low as -85 degrees and the air is so thin it renders people unconscious. Out of the 86 cases examined by the FAA, 18 people survived, a total of 21%. Two stowaways survived this year, including a 20-year-old Romanian man who flew from Vienna to London in July. Those who survived lost so much body heat that they entered a kind of "hibernation" state, which prevented damage to the brain and other organs from the lack of oxygen, according to a 1993 paper by the FAA's Office of Aviation Medicine. Intruders are rare The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Police Department are investigating how Tisdale could have gotten aboard the jet. Neither agency has released any findings. The TSA sets rules for airport security and reviews airport compliance, but it is the airport's responsibility to ensure intruders do not enter the airport grounds. TSA agents conduct thousands of random checks to ensure employees are vigilant about checking badges, spokeswoman Sterling Payne says. The current chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and the incoming chairman, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., issued statements saying they are following the matter. The Airports Council International-North America will work with the TSA "to examine and address any weaknesses" that emerge from the investigation, says the group's security chief, Chris Bidwell. He says such incidents are extremely rare at U.S. airports. The jet with Tisdale aboard departed Charlotte at 7:16 p.m., according to the flight tracking website FlightAware, a relatively bustling time at the eighth-busiest airport in the country. According to the 1993 FAA paper, the most common way people snuck into the wheel well was to wait near the runway for an aircraft to stop briefly. In the case that Laird investigated in the early 1990s, the stowaway stole a mechanic's uniform and walked to the plane as it sat near the terminal. Keating says that investigators do not understand the teen's motive. One clue is that he participated in an Air Force ROTC program at his high school and may have been familiar with airports and aircraft, he says. Keating says state troopers visited the Charlotte airport, but were leaving the matter of how the teen got onto the airport to the local police. Back to Top Baggage man asleep in plane's cargo hold AIRLINE staff were shocked to discover a baggage handler who had fallen asleep inside a plane's cargo hold. They had heard a "loud thumping noise" while preparing to take-off, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau says. another surprising incident, a dog escaped from the cargo door of a taxiing Boeing 737 and was seen running next to the plane. The incidents were among 260 reported to the ATSB over the past seven years and detailed in a safety report focusing on loading issues. The majority of them - 98 per cent - involved passenger planes. While some are "minor" events, the ATSB outlined recent examples of loading occurrences that could have had disastrous implications. Among the serious incidents was a Bulgarian-registered Airbus A320 that suffering a tail-strike during take-off from an Italian airport in 2009. The cause was found to be due to the forward cargo hold being emptied of luggage at one stopover, while the rear hold remained packed with luggage, leaving the plane unbalanced. The safety watchdog also detailed a serious incident in Australia where 60 additional golf bags weighing 1300kg were loaded onto a plane, resulting in unexpected handling issues. The ATSB is investigating two other recent incidents - one involving a plane that was one tonne over its maximum take-off weight and another with about 700kg of unlisted cargo. It says that while there have been a comparatively small number of such incidents, more care is needed. "Generally, there are a small number of loading occurrences per million movements, but there is no room for complacency," the ATSB said in the report. Loading incidents in Australia have typically dealt with evidence of fire on cargo hold pallets, cargo restraint and locks, aircraft weight and balance, inadequate load documentation, cost-cutting, training and communication. Fifty-five per cent of these incidents related to the securing of cargo, 30 per cent to incorrect loading, 10 per cent to loadsheet errors and five per cent to aircraft configuration. The failure to raise cargo locks was identified as the most commonly reported occurrence. This is dangerous as it could lead to cargo moving around during the flight and impacting the plane's centre of gravity and controllability. Airline operators have improved their loading systems recently but cross-checking by crew is essential for safety, the ATSB said. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ Back to Top Navy helicopter pilots busted for Lake Tahoe prank While their intentions may have been honorable, the actions of two Navy helicopter pilots have caused them to be stripped of their flight privileges forever. In additon, as reported on the Sign On San Diego web site on Wednesday, December 22, 2010, two student pilots will have to repeat training because of a September 13, 2010 incident in which they dipped two $33 million helicopters into Lake Tahoe while trying to take photos for the squadron's Facebook page, a Navy official stated. The repercussions came about because a witness who saw the event happened to photograph it, and posted the video, which is attached to this article, on YouTube. The video shows the two Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopters trying to hover low, about 70 feet over the lake. One apparently loses control for a few seconds, smacks its landing gear in the water, then pulls up. Both aircraft went into the water, though the footage only captured one, Navy officials have said. Damage to both helicopters sensitive electronic antenna and other equipment totaled $505,000. It would be difficult for the Navy, even without the video documenting the event, to turn a blind eye on such damage. Two flight instructors, both lieutenants, were at the controls that day. The Navy has blasted them with harsh words for their reckless actions. "Their complacency, lack of flight discipline and succession of poor judgments nearly led to the loss of two aircraft and 10 U.S. Navy sailors for no benefit and did result in the damage of two aircraft. The mishap was entirely preventable," Vice Admiral Allen Myers, commander of all naval air forces, said in the report. "The aviation community was lucky this day, and a horrific loss of life was narrowly avoided." The Navy didn't name the pilots involved because the punishments they received are considered administrative, and therefore private. A Navy official with knowledge of the case provided the details but declined to be named. It will be difficult to advance a career in the Navy as an officer with the loss of flight status, having to seek a nonflying job. With tight competition for officer slots, this action could be career-ending. Even if it isn't the case, such a serious reprimand in an officer's personnel file will put a crimp on their chances for promotion. Steve Diamond, a retired Navy Grumman F-14 Tomcat pilot, called the punishment just, but "a crushing blow", that sends a broader signal. "It sends a message to a whole generation of aviators. 'Hey, you can't do this.' So it has a higher purpose. Aviation is unrelenting when it comes to risk and safety." The 33-page report also was harshly critical of the squadron involved, HSM-41 at Naval Air Station North Island (NZY), in Coronado, CA, whose purpose is to train pilots to fly the Seahawk. The commanding officer at the time, who was not named, "created a climate that contributed to the mishap," it concluded. The year before, the commander himself flew over Lake Tahoe at a low altitude, at about 200 feet above the water. something that had "no valid training or operational reason." The report also cited the commander for laissez-faire oversight of flights headed outside of San Diego. That officer was replaced in the squadron 10 days after the September water impact, and is now doing graduate work at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, a Navy spokesman said. His replacement was not held responsible for the incident. The former commander's career was not affected by the Tahoe mishap because "ultimately, nothing in the investigation indicated that accountability rested solely with him," according to Lieutenant Aaron Kakiel, a spokesman for Vice Admiral Allen Myers. The two Navy helicopters were returning from participating in the California Capital Air Show at the former Mather Air Force Base, which was located east of Sacramento, CA. The report said one of the flight instructors organized the trip because the air show was close to family members in Sacramento. They decided to hover over Emerald Bay on Lake Tahoe, so they could get a nearby island in the background of the shot, which they planned to offer for the squadron's Facebook page. The Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopter is a workhorse rotary wing aircraft used by the Navy and other military branches for anti- submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASUW), naval special warfare (NSW) insertion, search and rescue (SAR), combat search and rescue (CSAR), vertical replenishment (VERTREP), and medical evacuation (MEDEVAC). All Navy H-60s carry a rescue hoist for SAR/CSAR missions. Each aircraft costs $33 million U.S. dollars. It can carry a crew of 3-4, plus 5 passengers or a slung load of 6,000 pounds, or an internal load of 4,100 pounds. It has a maximum speed 168 mph, a never exceed speed of 207 mph, a range of 450 nautical miles, and a service ceiling of 12,000 feet. http://www.examiner.com/ Back to Top EASA warns A330 crews: Check speeds if autopilot disengages Airbus A330 and A340 pilots are being issued with a new procedure for dealing with unreliable airspeed indications, which instructs them to resist immediately re-engaging the autopilot if it disconnects. Unreliable airspeed data, sourced through pitot tubes mounted on the aircraft, is still a consideration in the investigation of the loss of Air France flight AF447, an A330-200, over the South Atlantic last year. In an airworthiness directive the European Aviation Safety Agency states that a significant difference between airspeed sources causes the aircraft's autopilot and autothrust to disconnect, and the flight controls revert to 'alternate' law. The flight-director bars also vanish. But if two airspeed sources nevertheless show similar, incorrect, results the aircraft will restore the flight-director bars and allow the autopilot and autothrust to be re-engaged. EASA says that this can result in the aircraft giving misleading instructions to the autopilot. "In some cases the autopilot orders may be inappropriate, such as possible abrupt pitch command," it says. This, in turn, could result in unsafe aircraft behaviour. EASA is directing operators to amend their aircraft flight manuals to instruct pilots, in similar circumstances, not to engage the autopilot and autothrust immediately, and not to follow the flight-director orders. EASA says crews should instead perform a cross-check of all speed indications to assess whether the airspeed information is reliable, and to apply relevant 'unreliable airspeed' checks if necessary. At least two air data references must provide reliable speed indications for at least 30s, it adds, with the aircraft stable on its intended course, before pilots attempt to re-engage the autopilot and autothrust. EASA has ordered that the changes be made within 15 days from 5 January 2011. Source: Air Transport Intelligence news Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC