Flight Safety Information January 18, 2018 - No. 014 In This Issue Incident: China Southern B773 at Auckland on Jan 17th 2018, hydraulic problems Incident: Azul AT72 near Vitoria da Conquista on Jan 15th 2018, smoke on board Incident: Envoy E145 at Toledo on Jan 17th 2018, smoke indication EVAS - Cockpit Smoke Protection 17-JAN-2018 - Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) IPTN/CASA CN-235M-100 accident: 3 dead Cause of Bell helicopter crash that killed 2 pilots in Texas released in final report Air Canada to conduct 'immediate safety review' following SFO close calls 50 years ago, a US military jet crashed in Greenland - with 4 nuclear bombs on board TOP 10 AOPA AIR SAFETY INSTITUTE PROGRAMS IN 2017 Scholarships Available For Aviation Careers SpaceX, Boeing face questions on flight safety POSITION AVAILABLE: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PNG ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COMMISSION GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY ISASI Kapustin Memorial Scholarship Applications Due in April Call for Papers - ISASI 2018 Incident: China Southern B773 at Auckland on Jan 17th 2018, hydraulic problems A China Southern Boeing 777-300, registration B-2007 performing flight CZ-306 from Auckland (New Zealand) to Guangzhou (China), was climbing out of Auckland's runway 05R when the crew stopped the climb at FL100 reporting hydraulic problems. The aircraft entered a hold for the crew to work the related checklists, dumped fuel and returned to Auckland for a safe landing on runway 05R about 60 minutes after departure. The aircraft is still on the ground in Auckland about 8 hours after landing back. http://avherald.com/h?article=4b3c3e77&opt=256 Back to Top Incident: Azul AT72 near Vitoria da Conquista on Jan 15th 2018, smoke on board An Azul Linhas Aereas Avions de Transport Regional ATR-72-212A, registration PR-AQM performing flight AD-9277 from Belo Horizonte,MG to Vitoria da Conquista,BA (Brazil) with 69 passengers and 5 crew, was descending towards Vitoria da Conquista when the crew donned their oxygen masks and declared Mayday reporting smoke on board. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on Vitoria da Conquista's runway 15. Attending emergency services identified some electronic component of the arcraft as the source of the smoke. The passengers disembarked normally. The airline reported a technical problem prompted the crew to request a priority landing. The aircraft landed normally, the passengers disembarked normally, the aircraft was inspected. The occurrence aircraft departed Vitoria da Conquista about 32 hours after landing and positioned back to Belo Horizonte at maximum FL100 and is now still on the ground in Belo Horizonte another 9 hours after landing in Belo Horizonte. http://avherald.com/h?article=4b3c3d3c&opt=256 Back to Top Incident: Envoy E145 at Toledo on Jan 17th 2018, smoke indication An Envoy Embraer ERJ-145, registration N906AE performing flight MQ-3434/AA-3434 from Toledo,OH to Chicago O'Hare,IL (USA) with 46 passengers and 3 crew, was climbing out of Toledo's runway 25 when the crew stopped the climb at 12,000 feet reporting a smoke indication subsequently adding flihgt attendants had checked everything with no finding of any fire. The aircraft returned to Toledo, crew advised they would stop on the runway for emergency services to check the aircraft, and landed safely on runway 25 about 25 minutes after departure. Emergency services did not find any trace of fire, heat or smoke. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 3.5 hours, then departed again and reached Chicago with a delay of 4 hours. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ENY3434/history/20180117/1107Z/KTOL/KORD http://avherald.com/h?article=4b3c2a6c&opt=256 Back to Top Back to Top 17-JAN-2018 - Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) IPTN/CASA CN-235M-100 accident: 3 dead Status: Date: Wednesday 17 January 2018 Time: ca 12:50 Type: IPTN/CASA CN-235M-100 Operator: Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force) Registration: 98-148 C/n / msn: C-148 First flight: Crew: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3 Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Total: Fatalities: 3 / Occupants: 3 Airplane damage: Destroyed Airplane fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Hodulluca Mevkii, Yalvaç district ( Turkey) Phase: Unknown (UNK) Nature: Military Departure airport: Eskisehir Airport (ESK/LTBI), Turkey Destination airport: Eskisehir Airport (ESK/LTBI), Turkey Narrative: The military transport plane was destroyed when it impacted a snow covered hillside. The three occupants, two pilots and a technician, died in the crash. The aircraft operated on a training mission, originating from Eskisehir Air Base at 11:03 hours. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20180117-0 Back to Top Cause of Bell helicopter crash that killed 2 pilots in Texas released in final report Severe vibration caused the crash of a Bell helicopter 525 Relentless that killed two pilots during testing in 2016, according to a final NTSB report published this week. Officials at the Fort Worth-based Bell Helicopter Textron say the company has made changes in the configuration of the aircraft's pilot controls in response to the crash, which occurred near the Ellis County community of Italy. "Bell and the NTSB have carefully studied the cause of the vibration, which had never been encountered before," company officials said Wednesday in a statement. "The vibration was the result of an unanticipated combination of very high airspeed with a sustained low rotor RPM condition. The in-depth analysis of the flight data resulted in a thorough understanding of the corrective actions necessary, and appropriate changes to the aircraft have been implemented." The crash killed pilots Jason Grogan and Erik Boyse. http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/cause-of-bell-helicopter-crash-that-killed-2-pilots-in-texas- released-in-final-report/508934125 Back to Top Air Canada to conduct 'immediate safety review' following SFO close calls An Air Canada jet lands at San Francisco International Airport, Tuesday, October 24, 2017, one day after another Air Canada flight failed to heed a go-around order from the air traffic controller. (Karl Mondon/ Bay Area News Group) Air Canada has launched a review of its operating system and increased pilot training among a number of changes prompted by two dangerous close-calls at San Francisco International Incident in the last six months. (Karl Mondon/ Bay Area News Group) SAN FRANCISCO - Following two alarming close-calls at San Francisco International Airport last year, Air Canada has agreed to an immediate safety review of its entire operations, including increased pilot training and a closer look at the airline's arrivals and departures at SFO, the Bay Area News Group has learned. The airline's agreement - worked out with Transport Canada, that country's Federal Aviation Administration equivalent - comes amid a spike in incidents involving other airlines during take offs and landings at SFO. The National Transportation Safety Board is also investigating a December 2016 incident where a passenger jet almost pulled onto a runway in front of a departing jet liner, as well as a February 2017 incident where a plane aborted a landing when it learned another commercial jet liner was on the runway. But the sweeping Air Canada reviews show how serious the two SFO incidents with that airline were, including one which aviation experts have said could have caused one of the deadliest aviation disasters ever. "Many airlines have gone through this type of scrutiny after a major problem," said Ross Aimer, a retired United Airlines pilot and CEO of Aero Consulting Experts, who has followed the SFO mishaps. "These are all good and welcomed measures. However, I don't see a crucial part which is a look at pilot fatigue issues in Canada." Aimer said he believes fatigue played a role in both Air Canada incidents at SFO. In July, an Air Canada nearly landed on four passenger jets awaiting takeoff after the flight crew mistook a crowded taxiway for its intended runway. In October, an Air Canada plane ignored repeated orders from the tower to abort its landing because air traffic controllers feared a different plane was still on the runway. The Air Canada plane landed safely, and later explained that it was having problems with its radio. "Transport Canada continues to work with Air Canada as a result of these incidents," said Transport Canada spokeswoman Marie-Anyk Côté. "To date, the department is satisfied with the review conducted by Air Canada of their Airbus program as well as the corrective action plan they have put in place to address identified issues." The measures include: Conducting an immediate safety review of Air Canada's operations; Reducing intervals between pilot training and evaluation from eight to six months for the next three years; Conducting four in-flight surveillance flights into and out of SFO; Appointing a technical advisor to observe the ongoing SFO investigations; Enhancing surveillance activities on the airline's narrow body Airbus fleet and; Air Canada conducting a complete review of its operations. Air Canada did not respond to a request for comment. Côté said Air Canada's operations audit is ongoing. FAA spokesman Ian Gregor said his agency is "satisfied with the actions (Air Canada and Transport Canada) have taken." Last week, an Aeromexico plane lined up to the wrong runway, where a Virgin America plane was waiting to depart. That plane dropped to about 250 feet and was about .69 miles from the start of the runway before aborting the landing and flying over the other aircraft, according to data reviewed by this news agency. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/exclusive-air-canada-to-conduct-immediate-safety- review-following-sfo-close-calls/ Back to Top 50 years ago, a US military jet crashed in Greenland - with 4 nuclear bombs on board Cleanup crew search for radioactive debris. U.S. Air Force , CC BY Fifty years ago, on Jan. 21, 1968, the Cold War grew significantly colder. It was on this day that an American B-52G Stratofortress bomber, carrying four nuclear bombs, crashed onto the sea ice of Wolstenholme Fjord in the northwest corner of Greenland, one of the coldest places on Earth. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and the Danes were not pleased. The ejected gunner is helped to safety. United States Air Force, CC BY The bomber - call sign HOBO 28 - had crashed due to human error. One of the crew members had stuffed some seat cushions in front of a heating vent, and they subsequently caught fire. The smoke quickly became so thick that the crew needed to eject. Six of the 7 crew members parachuted out safely before the plane crashed onto the frozen fjord 7 miles west of Thule Air Base - America's most northern military base, 700 miles north of the Arctic Circle. The island of Greenland, situated about halfway between Washington D.C. and Moscow, has strategic importance to the American military - so much so that the United States had, in 1946, made an unsuccessful bid to buy it from Denmark. Nevertheless, Denmark, a strong ally of the United States, did allow the American military to operate an air base at Thule. The crash severely strained the United States' relationship with Denmark, since Denmark's 1957 nuclear-free zone policy had prohibited the presence of any nuclear weapons in Denmark or its territories. The Thule crash revealed that the United States had actually been routinely flying planes carrying nuclear bombs over Greenland, and one of those illicit flights had now resulted in the radioactive contamination of a fjord. The radioactivity was released because the nuclear warheads had been compromised. The impact from the crash and the subsequent fire had broken open the weapons and released their radioactive contents, but luckily, there was no nuclear detonation. To be specific, HOBO 28's nuclear weapons were actually hydrogen bombs. As I explain in my book, "Strange Glow: The Story of Radiation," a hydrogen bomb (or H-bomb) is a second-generation type of nuclear weapon that is much more powerful than the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two bombs were "fission" bombs - bombs that get their energy from the splitting (fission) of very large atoms (such as uranium and plutonium) into smaller atoms. In contrast, HOBO 28's bombs were fusion bombs - bombs that get their energy from the union (fusion) of the very small nuclei of hydrogen atoms. Each of the four Mark 28 F1 hydrogen bombs that HOBO 28 carried were nearly 100 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima (1,400 kilotons versus 15 kilotons). Fusion bombs release so much more energy than fission bombs that it's hard to comprehend. For example, if a fission bomb like Hiroshima's were dropped on the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., it's likely that the White House (about 1.5 miles away) would suffer little direct damage. In contrast, if just one of the Mark 28 F1 hydrogen bombs were dropped on the Capitol building, it would destroy the White House as well as everything else in Washington, D.C. (a destructive radius of about 7.5 miles). It is for this reason that North Korea's recent claim of achieving hydrogen bomb capabilities is so very worrisome. After the crash, the United States and Denmark had very different ideas about how to deal with HOBO 28's wreckage and radioactivity. The U.S. wanted to just let the bomber wreckage sink into the fjord and remain there, but Denmark wouldn't allow that. Denmark wanted all the wreckage gathered up immediately and moved, along with all of the radioactively contaminated ice, to the United States. Since the fate of the Thule Air Base hung in the balance, the U.S. agreed to Denmark's demands. U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command film report on the Crested Ice project. The clock was ticking on the cleanup, code named operation "Crested Ice," because, as winter turned into spring, the fjord would begin to melt and any remaining debris would sink 800 feet to the seafloor. Initial weather conditions were horrible, with temperatures as low as minus 75 degrees Fahrenheit, and wind speeds as high as 80 miles per hour. In addition, there was little sunlight, because the sun was not due to rise again over the Arctic horizon until mid-February. Groups of American airmen, walking 50 abreast, swept the frozen fjord looking for all the pieces of wreckage - some as large as plane wings and some as small as flashlight batteries. Patches of ice with radioactive contamination were identified with Geiger counters and other types of radiation survey meters. All wreckage pieces were picked up, and ice showing any contamination was loaded into sealed tanks. Most every piece of the plane was accounted for except, most notably, a secondary stage cylinder of uranium and lithium deuteride - the nuclear fuel components of one of the bombs. It was not found on the ice and a sweep of the seafloor with a minisub also found nothing. Its current location remains a mystery. Although the loss of the fuel cylinder was perplexing and disturbing, it is a relatively small item (about the size and shape of a beer keg) and it emits very little radioactivity detectable by radiation survey meters, making it very hard to find at the bottom of a fjord. Fortunately, it is not possible for this secondary "fusion" unit to detonate on its own without first being induced through detonation of the primary "fission" unit (plutonium). So there is no chance of a spontaneous nuclear explosion occurring in the fjord in the future, no matter how long it remains there. The successful cleanup helped to heal United States-Denmark relations. But nearly 30 years later, the Thule incident spawned a new political controversy in Denmark. In 1995, a Danish review of internal government documents revealed that Danish Prime Minister H.C. Hansen had actually given the United States tacit approval to fly nuclear weapons into Thule. Thus, the Danish government had to share some complicity in the Thule incident. As recently as 2003, environmental scientists from Denmark revisited the fjord to see if they could detect any residual radioactivity from the crash. Was bottom sediment, seawater or seaweed radioactive, after nearly 40 years? Yes, but the levels were extremely low. Thule Air Base survived all of the controversies over the decades but became increasingly neglected as nuclear weaponry moved away from bomber-based weapon delivery and more toward land- based and submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Nevertheless, as Thule's bomber role waned, its importance for radar detection of incoming ICBMs grew, since a trans-Artic trajectory is a direct route for Russian nuclear missiles targeted at the United States. In 2017, Thule got a US$40,000,000 upgrade for its radar systems due, in part, to increased concern about Russia as a nuclear threat, and also because of worries about recent Russian military forays into the Arctic. Thule Air Base thus remains indispensable to American defense, and the United States remains very interested in Greenland - and committed to maintaining good relations with Denmark. https://theconversation.com/50-years-ago-a-us-military-jet-crashed-in-greenland-with-4-nuclear- bombs-on-board-87155 Back to Top TOP 10 AOPA AIR SAFETY INSTITUTE PROGRAMS IN 2017 Are you passionate about aviation safety? Since 1950, the AOPA Air Safety Institute has served all pilots and aviation enthusiasts-not just AOPA members-by providing safety education, research, and data analysis. We believe that Air Safety Institute pilots are safer pilots, so we want to make sure that you and your pilot friends are using our free safety programs. We also like to ask for your help in reaching others, who for one reason or another don't consume safety information, but would benefit from being made aware of its availability and tapping into it. We call this initiative the "find one, bring one" campaign and hope you will be on board to help us save lives and reduce airplane accidents. To get started, here are the Air Safety Institute's Top 10 safety products in 2017. Share, enjoy, and fly safely! Accident Case Study: Single Point Failure. A vacuum pump failure on a sunny day is no big deal, but in instrument meteorological conditions-and especially without backup instrumentation-it's a serious emergency. This Accident Case Study reviews a flight situation for which the pilot was ill prepared. Learn how you can do better, and share the video with others so they too can learn from the mistakes that were made. Safety Tip videos. These short clips provide easy-to-remember techniques for flying safely. Does your landing spot wander in the windshield on short final? Aiming Point can fix that. The 4 Ws of Communication help you broadcast clearly when keying the mic. Box the Controls shows a clever and efficient way to check that flight controls operate as they should. Also, Taxi Controls explores proper control placements to help you navigate taxiways when the winds kick up. There I was... podcast series. Tune into unpredictable flying dilemmas when you hop into the cockpit with our podcast series, which honors the hangar-flying tradition of sharing experience and knowledge. From weather problems to airplane emergencies, skilled pilots share how they evaluated their predicaments and took action. In-person seminars. Feed your flying passion with captivating aviation safety seminars offered throughout the United States. Find your favorite location in the online schedule. Symbols identify whether the seminar is held at an aviation-themed location or at an airport or both. Participation qualifies for the safety seminar portion of the FAA Wings program. New Ask ATC series. How do you approach an air traffic controller who rattles off instructions so fast you don't understand? Fast Talkers explains. Traffic Alerts comes to the rescue if you need help requesting traffic advisories, while Bothering ATC debunks the notion that talking to flights squawking 1200 is an inconvenience for ATC. Calling Up a Busy Controller offers VFR pilots advice on the most important thing to tell ATC, and Flight Following vs. Flight Plan explains the difference between the two VFR services. Stall and Spin Accidents: Keep the Wings Flying. While aerobatic training can help with unusual attitude recovery, it is unlikely that it will help pilots recover from an inadvertent spin in the traffic pattern. This study explores accidents in GA aircraft that occurred in a 15-year period ending in 2014. Find out where fatal stalls are more likely to occur-it may surprise you. Safety quizzes. Did you know that the Air Safety Institute has updated its popular 10-question quizzes and produced them in a mobile-friendly format? Take on the Air Safety Institute quizmaster and test your VFR and IFR skills on your phone or tablet, anytime and anywhere. Medical Self-Assessment: A Pilot's Guide to Flying Healthy online course. When it comes to your health and flying, it pays off to be in charge. How? First, get a medical checkup-regularly. Then, between doctor visits, take stock of your well being, using the tools in this course. Get a better grasp of aeromedical matters and physiology-including risk factors of significant medical conditions and how these affect your ability to fly, and fly safely. This course qualifies for the FAA's BasicMed alternative to medical certification. Online Flight Instructor Refresher Course. Learn with the best when you sign up for the most comprehensive FAA-approved CFI renewal program (cost $124). If you're a flight instructor, aspiring to become one, or interested in advancing your aviation skills, you'll enjoy this popular course, which has been updated with fresh content and a new design. CFI to CFI newsletter. No need to be a CFI or AOPA member, but you must subscribe to receive this free quarterly newsletter. Trade flight-training tips, and explore the challenges and opportunities flight instructors face. The Air Safety Institute has you covered-from flight planning to proficiency training. Next to courses, videos, quizzes, and digital and online publications, the institute also produces the AOPA Fly-In procedure videos and the Joseph T. Nall report. These safety programs were made possible by generous contributions to the AOPA Foundation from pilots like you. The AOPA Air Safety Institute thanks you. Machteld Smith Aviation Technical Writer: Machteld Smith is an aviation technical writer for the Air Safety Institute. She holds a commercial pilot certificate with multiengine, instrument, and seaplane ratings. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/december/20/top-10-aopa-air-safety- institute-programs-in-2017 Back to Top Scholarships Available For Aviation Careers Students of all ages who are working toward a career in aviation can find scholarships available from a wide range of sources. GAMA said last week it is now accepting applications from high school students for its Edward W. Stimpson "Aviation Excellence" Award, named for the organization's founder. The $2,000 award will go to a graduating high school senior who has been accepted into an aviation degree program. Applicants are judged on academic skills, extracurricular activities and an essay. For high school music students, the Flying Musicians Association is offering scholarships for flight training through solo (about 15 hours), for juniors and seniors nominated by their music director. Many other aviation groups offer scholarships for students at all levels, from beginner ground school to specialized career training. Women in Aviation International and the Whirly Girls offer extensive scholarship opportunities, and most are not restricted by gender. EAA, NBAA and AOPA also list scholarship opportunities on their websites. Many groups require applicants to become a member for access to the scholarships. https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Scholarships-Available-For-Aviation-Careers-230184- 1.html Back to Top SpaceX, Boeing face questions on flight safety Boeing and SpaceX hope to launch commercial crew ferry ships on long-awaited test flights later this year, but both companies face major challenges getting the spacecraft certified before late 2019 when seats aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft will no longer be easily available for NASA space station crews, officials told lawmakers Wednesday. And whenever they do eventually fly, the companies may not be able to meet NASA's stringent flight safety requirements. The agency wants the new spacecraft to have only one chance in 500 of losing a crew during ascent and entry, and an overall 1-in-200 chance of fatalities due to a spacecraft issue during a 210-day mission to the station. "The panel has been monitoring the providers' progress in working toward the LOC (loss of crew) requirements, and it appears that neither provider will achieve 1-in-500 for ascent/entry and will be challenged to meet the overall mission requirement of 1-in-200," Patricia Sanders, chairman of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, or ASAP, told the House Subcommittee on Space. Since the end of the space shuttle program in 2011, NASA has relied on the Russian Soyuz spacecraft to carry astronauts to and from the space station at more than $80 million a seat under the most recent contract. But in 2014, NASA awarded commercial crew contracts to Boeing and SpaceX to end the agency's sole reliance on the Russians. Boeing won a $4.2 billion contract to develop the CST-100 Starliner capsule while SpaceX won a separate $2.6 billion to build its Dragon crew craft. Both companies initially promised test flights in 2016 and 2017, but funding shortfalls in Congress slowed development. A SpaceX crew capsule moves in for docking with the International Space Station. SPACEX Boeing now hopes to launch the first Starliner spacecraft atop an Atlas 5 rocket on an unpiloted test flight in late August, following by a crewed demonstration flight in November. SpaceX has a similar schedule for its new Dragon crew ship, which will launch from the Kennedy Space Center atop an upgraded version of the company's Falcon 9 booster. NASA managers hope to certify the spacecraft for routine, operational crew ferry flights to the International Space Station early in 2019, well behind schedule because of earlier delays. Hedging its bets, the agency secured seats aboard Soyuz spacecraft through 2019. But that is the end of the road for routine flights aboard the Russian ferry ships. Bill Gerstenmaier, director of spaceflight operations at NASA, said it takes three years to build a Soyuz and given station operations are currently only planned through 2024, there are no plans to purchase any additional seats from the Russians. Cristina Chaplain, a senior manager at the Government Accountability Office, told lawmakers the current target for commercial crew certification is highly uncertain due to the amount of work remaining. "While Boeing and SpaceX are making significant progress, both continue to experience schedule delays," she said. "It's been three weeks since the program's original December 2017 goal to secure domestic access to the space station. Yet neither contract has yet to conduct a test flight. "In fact, final certification dates have slipped to the first quarter of calendar year 2019 and we found that the program's own analysis indicates that certification is likely to slip into December 2019 for SpaceX and February 2020 for Boeing." Boeing plans to launch its Starliner crew ship atop an Atlas 5 rocket from complex 41 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. BOEING She said it's not unusual for advanced technology programs to experience delays, especially in a program that requires new human-rated spacecraft to operate with safety margins significantly higher than the space shuttle's. But frequent delays "and uncertain final certification dates raise questions about whether the U.S. will have uninterrupted access to the space station beyond 2019," she said. "NASA may have to purchase additional Soyuz seats, but as Mr. Gerstenmaier mentioned, there are limits to how it can do so." "Significant challenges to safety and reliability" Space Subcommittee Chairman Brian Babin, R-Texas, opened the two-hour hearing by saying SpaceX and Boeing "may not meet safety and reliability requirements and could even slip into cost overruns." "Both companies are making progress, but certainly not at the rate that was expected, and not without significant challenges to safety and reliability," he said. "In order to remedy these problems, NASA may seek additional funding or accept significant risk. Neither of those options is viable." Gerstenmaier agreed the program faces challenges, but he said NASA is working closely with Boeing and SpaceX to mitigate risks and representatives of both companies insisted they will be ready for initial test flights this summer with the first crewed test missions before the end of the year. All said crew safety is the top priority. "The NASA team is fully aware of the amount of work to go and the requirements that need to be completed, reviewed and closed by NASA and its partners," Gerstenmaier said. "NASA's been fully engaged with the partners during their design and testing and manufacturing processes. NASA's aware of the schedule, but not driven by the schedule." SpaceX tested its crew capsule abort system during a dramatic 2015 test at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. SPACEX SpaceX came under more scrutiny from lawmakers than Boeing, presumably because SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket has suffered two catastrophic failures, one during a flight in 2015 and the other during a launch pad test in September 2016. United Launch Alliance's Atlas 5 has flown 74 successful missions in a row since the booster's maiden launch in 2002. Lawmakers questioned NASA's insight into the rocket's Russian-built RD- 180 first-stage engine, but Gerstenmaier said the agency was working to achieve that. No other Atlas-related questions were raised. The causes of SpaceX's two failures, and its plans to load astronauts on board before the Falcon 9 is loaded with propellants, drew repeated questions. SpaceX's first failure, in June 2015, destroyed a Dragon cargo ship bound for the International Space Station. The mishap was blamed on a defective strut in the rocket's second stage liquid oxygen tank that apparently fractured or broke away, releasing a high-pressure helium tank that was immersed in the oxygen. The helium vessel then shot up to the top of the oxygen tank, triggering the failure of the second stage. Flights resumed the following December using a new technique to increase booster performance using rocket propellants that are chilled below the temperatures employed by other rockets. The upgraded Falcon 9 uses colder-than-normal RP-1 kerosene fuel and super-cooled, or "densified," liquid oxygen loaded just 35 minutes before launch. The helium tanks, known as carbon composite overwrap pressure vessels, or COPVs, are submerged in the oxygen and subjected to those ultra-low temperatures. SpaceX reeled off nine successful flights in a row using densified propellants before a spectacular Sept. 1, 2016, on-pad explosion that destroyed another Falcon 9 and a $200 million communications satellite. That failure also involved the second stage helium pressurization system. SpaceX engineers were never able to pinpoint a "root cause," but eventually concluded the most likely scenario involved possibly frozen oxygen propellant trapped between the aluminum skin of a helium tank and its insulating carbon fiber overwrap. After extensive testing, "SpaceX modified its helium loading configuration, process and controls to ensure that the COPVs would not be exposed to these identified conditions and, accepting any residual risk, successfully resumed commercial launches with the existing COPV design," Sanders said. "However, to further improve safety, SpaceX and NASA agreed that a redesign of the COPV was necessary to reduce the risk for missions with crew on board," she added. A "rigorous" test program is underway and "the panel considers this to be the most critical step in clearing the COPV for human space flight." To use densified liquid oxygen, the super-cold propellant must be loaded just before launch. For piloted Dragon missions, that means the astronauts must be strapped in before liquid oxygen loading begins, a strategy known as "load and go." Many veteran rocket engineers have questioned the safety of that procedure, but Hans Koenigsmann, vice president of flight reliability at SpaceX, said it improves the Falcon 9's performance and at the same time enhances crew safety. "We try to minimize the time we expose personnel, not just astronauts but also (ground) crew, to the hazard of fueling," he said. "We strap them in, we make sure they're comfortable and then the ground crew retreats and we arm the pad abort system and then we start fueling the main propellants. It's a relatively quick procedure, and we believe this exposure time is as short as possible and, therefore, the safest approach." And in any case, he said, the Dragon's already-tested abort system would have saved a crew from an in-flight failure like the one in 2015 and it likely would have pulled a crew to safety in a rapid on- pad explosion like the most recent mishap. John Mulholland, vice president and program manager of Boeing's Starliner program, said the ASAP "appropriately has significant concerns" over the use of densified propellants. "Using this type propellant is something we considered years ago in the space shuttle program when we were looking for additional performance capability, but we never could get comfortable with the safety risks. When you're loading densified propellant, it's not an inherently stable situation." But Koenigsmann disagreed, saying earlier that liquid oxygen loaded in more traditional fashion is always boiling off and must be constantly replaced. "Some people say it is quiescent, but it's actually a constantly boiling process that needs to be refilled from the other side," he said. "So we don't consider that as a really quiescent stage, either." Gerstenmaier said NASA engineers are studying the "load and go" procedure and "we'll make an informed decision about when, for this particular rocket's design, is the safest time to put the crew (on board)." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lawmakers-question-boeing-spacex-on-flight-safety/ Back to Top Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY I am a student with City University in London doing my MSc in Air Transport Management and conducting a survey for academic research on the Importance of Pilot Mental Health and Peer Support Group and would be grateful if you could complete the survey below: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/B3HGHVV Thank you in advance! Bilal Farid Back to Top ISASI Kapustin Memorial Scholarship Applications Due in April Applications for the 2018 ISASI Rudolph Kapustin Memorial Scholarship must be submitted on or before April 15, 2018, says ISASI Secretary Chad Balentine, who serves as Scholarship Committee Chairman. Balentine noted that this worthy program is designed to encourage and assist college-level students interested in the field of aviation safety and aircraft occurrence investigation. ISASI funds the Rudolf Kapustin Memorial Scholarship through donations and will provide an annual allocation of funds for the scholarship if funds are available. Applicants must be enrolled as full time students in an ISASI recognized education program, which includes courses in aircraft engineering and/or operations, aviation psychology, aviation safety and/or aircraft occurrence investigation, etc. Applicants must have major or minor subjects that focus on aviation safety/investigation. A student who has received the annual ISASI Rudolf Kapustin Memorial Scholarship will not be eligible to apply for it again. Students who wish to apply should go to http://isasi.org/Documents/Forms/ISASI%20Rudolf%20Kapustin%20Memorial%20Scholarship%20Form%20Jan%2010%202018%200923.pdf for guidelines and the application form. Chad Balentine ISASI International Secretary Kapustin Scholarship Selection Committee Chairman email: chad.balentine@isasi.org Phone: 703.689.4225 Curt Lewis