Flight Safety Information August 10, 2020 - No. 161 In This Issue Incident: Shenzhen A333 at Shenzhen on Aug 9th 2020, loss of cabin pressure Incident: AirAsia India A320 at Ranchi on Aug 8th 2020, rejected takeoff due to bird strike Incident: Western Global MD11 at Brussels on Aug 8th 2020, flaps trouble Incident: Brussels A320 near Limoges on Aug 7th 2020, hydraulic issue Incident: ANZ A320 near Christchurch on Aug 8th 2020, lightning strike Incident: Swiss A321 at Zurich on Aug 7th 2020, pilot incapacitated Canadair CL-215 crashed during a fire fighting mission on the Portuguese/Spanish border, killing one An Air India Express Boeing 737-800 suffered a runway excursion on landing at Kozhikode Airport AOPA's Air Safety Institute Releases New Accident Case Study Major US airlines have created a 'no fly list' for travelers who refuse to wear face coverings Air India Crash Investigators Focus On a Dangerous Runway and a Pilot's Actions Kerala plane crash: 'Black boxes' from Air India jet found How do pilots deal with an engine failure on takeoff? Two months after plane crash, 193 Pakistan pilots get notice over 'fake' licence Would EMAS have prevented the Kerala air tragedy? Wizz Air hands task of safety oversight to EASA SkyWest Ailines pilot, 38, arrested 30 MINUTES before takeoff for trying to fly his plane 'drunk' Other Voices: The Link Between Diversity and Aviation Safety Survey Says FAA Inspectors Feel Pressure To Accommodate Business Recorders of overrun 737 recovered as 'long landing' report emerges Qantas Plans Boeing 787 Antarctica Sightseeing Flights XTRAirways selects Vistair to provide Document Management ALS Aviation Courses offered during August / September 2020 The USC Aviation Safety & Security Program Will Offer Online and In-Person Classes This Fall Trinity College Dublin and EASA Air Ops Community Survey on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on aviation workers Swinburne University Capstone Research Projects 2020 - Airline pax preferences Study Swinburne University Capstone Research Projects 2020 - UAM/RCO Study Graduate Research Survey (1) GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY (3) Today's Photo Back to Top Incident: Shenzhen A333 at Shenzhen on Aug 9th 2020, loss of cabin pressure A Shenzhen Airlines Airbus A330-300, registration B-302E performing flight ZH-9209 from Shenzhen to Xian (China), was climbing through 9100 meters (FL300) out of Shenzhen when the crew initiated an emergency descent to 3600 meters (FL118) due to the loss of cabin pressure. The aircraft levelled off at 3600 meters about 5 minutes after leaving 9100 meters. The aircraft subsequently attempted to climb again, however, aborted the climb at 6000 meters (FL197), turned around to return to Shenzhen and landed safely back in Shenzhen about 100 minutes after departure. A replacement Airbus A330-300 registration B-1036 reached Xian with a delay of about 4.5 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground about 10 hours after landing back. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db0f0af&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: AirAsia India A320 at Ranchi on Aug 8th 2020, rejected takeoff due to bird strike An AirAsia India Airbus A320-200, registration VT-HKG performing flight I6-632 from Ranchi to Mumbai (India), was accelerating for takeoff from Ranchi's runway 31 when the crew rejected takeoff after an engine had ingested a bird and failed with a bang and sparks. The aircraft slowed safely and returned to the apron. A replacement A320-200 registration VT-JRT reached Mumbai with a delay of about 9 hours. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db090fb&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Western Global MD11 at Brussels on Aug 8th 2020, flaps trouble A Western Global McDonnell Douglas MD-11 freighter, registration N799JN performing flight KD-922 from Brussels (Belgium) to Miami,FL (USA), was climbing out of Brussels' runway 01 when the crew requested to level off reporting they needed to react to several alerts and needed to return to Brussels. The aircraft stopped the climb at 5000 feet, the crew worked the checklists and advised they were having flaps trouble. The aircraft climbed to FL140 for about 20 minutes to dump fuel and returned to Brussels for a safe landing at a higher than normal speed (173 knots over ground) on runway 01 about 65 minutes after departure. The aircraft is still on the ground about 7 hours after landing. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db08638&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Brussels A320 near Limoges on Aug 7th 2020, hydraulic issue A Brussels Airlines Airbus A320-200, registration OO-SNM performing flight SN-3735 from Brussels (Belgium) to Malaga,SP (Spain), was enroute at FL390 about 20nm west of Limoges (France) when the crew declared PAN PAN reporting a hydraulic issue and decided to return to Brussels. The aircraft landed safely back in Brussels about 105 minutes after departure. A replacement A320-200 registration OO-TCH reached Malaga with a delay of 3:45 hours. The occurrence aircraft returned to service after about 23 hours on the ground. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db07092&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: ANZ A320 near Christchurch on Aug 8th 2020, lightning strike An ANZ Air New Zealand Airbus A320-200, registration ZK-OXK performing flight NZ-615 from Auckland to Queenstown (New Zealand) with 141 people on board, was enroute at FL360 about 120nm north of Christchurch (New Zealand) when the crew decided to divert to Christchurch due to a lightning strike. The aircraft landed safely on runway 20 about 35 minutes later. A passenger reported they were about half way into the climb out of Auckland when the aircraft performed a quick quite sharp turn to the left followed by lightning hitting the top of the right hand engine (V2527) and whacked the aircraft. The aircraft subsequently diverted to Christchurch. A replacement A320-200 registration ZK-OXD departed Christchurch about 90 minutes after ZK-OXK had landed and reached Queenstown with a delay of 75 minutes. http://avherald.com/h?article=4db06e5e&opt=0 Back to Top Incident: Swiss A321 at Zurich on Aug 7th 2020, pilot incapacitated A Swiss International Airlines Airbus A321-200, registration HB-IOC performing flight LX-1077 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Zurich (Switzerland), was intercepting the ILS for Zurich's runway 28 when the crew declared Mayday reporting one of the pilots was incapacitated possibly due to food poisoning. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 28, the aircraft taxied to the gate with emergency services in trail. http://avherald.com/h?article=4dafbf39&opt= Back to Top Canadair CL-215 crashed during a fire fighting mission on the Portuguese/Spanish border, killing one Date: Saturday 8 August 2020 Type: Canadair CL-215-1A10 Operated by: Babcock On behalf of: Autoridade Nacional de Emergência e Proteção Civil Registration: EC-HET C/n / msn: 1034 First flight: 1974 Crew: Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 2 Passengers: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 0 Total: Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 2 Aircraft damage: Damaged beyond repair Location: near Lindoso ( Spain) Phase: Maneuvering (MNV) Nature: Fire fighting Departure airport: ? Destination airport: ? Narrative: A Canadair CL-215-1A10 firefighting airplane, registration EC-HET, was destroyed when it impacted hilly terrain during a firefighting operation Parque Nacional da Peneda-Gerês area on the Portuguese/Spanish border. The accident occurred 1-2 km inside Spanish territory. The Portuguese pilot died in the crash, the Spanish co-pilot sustained serious injuries. https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200808-0 Back to Top An Air India Express Boeing 737-800 suffered a runway excursion on landing at Kozhikode Airport, India Date: Friday 7 August 2020 Time: 19:40 Type: Boeing 737-8HG (WL) Operator: Air India Express Registration: VT-AXH C/n / msn: 36323/2108 First flight: 2006-11-15 (13 years 9 months) Engines: 2 CFMI CFM56-7B27 Crew: Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 6 Passengers: Fatalities: 16 / Occupants: 184 Total: Fatalities: 18 / Occupants: 190 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Aircraft fate: Written off (damaged beyond repair) Location: Kozhikode-Calicut Airport (CCJ) ( India) Phase: Landing (LDG) Nature: International Scheduled Passenger Departure airport: Dubai Airport (DXB/OMDB), United Arab Emirates Destination airport: Kozhikode-Calicut Airport (CCJ/VOCL), India Flightnumber: IX1344 Narrative: Air India Express flight 1344, a Boeing 737-800, suffered a runway excursion on landing at Kozhikode-Calicut Airport, India and broke in two. Both pilots and sixteen passengers died in the accident. The flight departed Dubai Airport, United Arab Emirates at 10:15 UTC on a passenger service to Kozhikode-Calicut Airport. The aircraft arrived from the west, overflying the airport at 13:42 UTC. It then performed a teardrop approach to runway 28. This approach was discontinued and the aircraft subsequently flew a teardrop approach to runway 10. According to a DGCA official the aircraft touched down about 900 meters down the 2850 m long runway at 14:10 UTC (19:40 local time). The aircraft failed to stop on the remaining runway and overran. It went down a 34 m dropoff and broke in two. Weather Weather at the time of the approaches and landing was poor. At 14:00 UTC scattered clouds were reported at 300 and 1200 feet with a few Cumulonimbus clouds at 2500 feet and overcast clouds at 8000 feet. The wind was from 260 degrees at 12 knots. Visibility was 2000 m in rain. Airport and runway The airport has a single runway (10/28) which is located on a flattened hill. The Landing Distance Available (LDA) for both directions is 2850 m. The runway strip extended to 60 m beyond the threshold. After the paved surface, there is a runway end safety area (RESA), measuring 93 m x 90 m. The ICAO required RESA length is 90 m, whereas the recommended length is 240 m. Past the RESA there is a 35 m drop off. Classification: Runway excursion Sources: » indiatvnews.com » news18.com METAR Weather report: 13:00 UTC / 18:30 local time: VOCL 071300Z 20006KT 1500 -TSRA SCT003 SCT012 FEW025CB OVC080 24/24 Q1007 NOSIG 13:30 UTC / 19:00 local time: VOCL 071330Z 27013KT 1500 -TSRA SCT003 SCT012 FEW025CB OVC080 24/23 Q1008 NOSIG 14:00 UTC / 19:30 local time: VOCL 071400Z 26012KT 2000 -RA SCT003 SCT012 FEW025CB OVC080 24/23 Q1008 TEMPO 1500 -RA BR 14:30 UTC / 20:00 local time: VOCL 071430Z 24011KT 2000 -RA SCT003 SCT012 FEW025CB OVC080 24/23 Q1009 TEMPO 1500 -RA BR https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20200807-0 Back to Top AOPA's Air Safety Institute Releases New Accident Case Study Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety Institute (ASI) released a new episode in its popular Accident Case Study video series about a Lake Renegade amphibious aircraft that crashed while attempting to take off from the Oshkosh seaplane base. In Accident Case Study: Lake Renegade, ASI follows the events of the day that led to the ill-fated takeoff. Choppy water conditions, wind direction, and a forgotten flap extension each played a role in the crash. The largest factor, however, was the pilot's decision to depart, despite unfavorable conditions with an experienced CFI passenger on board. "The lessons learned from this accident are valuable to all pilots and CFIs," said ASI SVP Richard McSpadden. "It's a vital reminder of the trust passengers place in their pilots, and can serve as somber reinforcement of our duty to uphold that trust," said McSpadden. Join the AOPA Air Safety Institute as it examines the circumstances that led to the tragedy. Doing so may help us recognize and avoid a similar mistake. Each Accident Case Study video uses actual radio communications recordings and/or on-scene videos combined with animation developed by technical experts to explain the dynamics of the situation and track the accident chain of events. View the accident case study, and you can also view past accident case studies here. https://www.aviationpros.com/aircraft/business-general-aviation/press-release/21146752/aircraft-owners-and-pilots-association-aopa-aopas-air-safety-institute-releases-new-accident-case-study Back to Top Major US airlines have created a 'no fly list' for travelers who refuse to wear face coverings during the pandemic • United strengthened its mask requirements so that passengers must wear masks at the airport. • A large number of major US airlines are abiding by a "no mask, no fly" policy for passengers in wake of the coronavirus pandemic. • Several incidents of passengers refusing to wear masks have caused chaos on flights. • Earlier this week, Delta Air Lines removed two passengers who did not wear masks. The airline said it has placed over 100 people on a "no-fly" list for not using face coverings. • United Airlines has also said it will ban passengers who won't comply with its mask requirements. Major US airlines are placing customers who won't wear masks on flights on "no-fly" lists. On Friday, Alaska Airlines announced that any passenger over the age of 2 would be barred from flying with the company again if they refused to a wear a face covering, the Anchorage Daily News reported. It's only the lastest airline to do so. In late April, JetBlue was the first US airline to announce that it would require all customers to wear facial coverings on flights. Since then, all major US airlines require masks for passengers to board flights. Some like Delta and United have strengthened masking requirements - United now requires all passengers to wear masks at all parts of the airport prior to boarding. Even so, a number of incidents where passengers refused to cooperate with the requirements to wear masks have made headlines in recent months. Many flight attendants have expressed concerns about having to confront passengers who will not comply with guidelines. Earlier this month, a Delta Airlines flight heading to Atlanta from Detroit returned to the gate to remove two passengers who refused to wear masks. Delta's CEO told NBC's "Today" show in July that the airline would put customers who won't abide by the masking guidelines on a no-fly list, barring them from boarding any flight in the future. United Airlines also said in June that it would prohibit passengers who refused to wear masks from flying with the airline in the future. This weekend, the US marked at least 5 million coronavirus cases, according to Johns Hopkins University. Growing bodies of research attest that wearing face masks is key to reducing spread of coronavirus. A former Federal Aviation Administration associate administrator for airports for the Obama administration told NPR that "No one has a right to fly" - airlines, as private businesses, have the right to deny service, in accordance with their own policies. https://www.businessinsider.com/major-us-airlines-no-mask-no-fly-2020-8 Back to Top Air India Crash Investigators Focus On a Dangerous Runway and a Pilot's Actions • As investigators sought the cause of a jetliner accident that killed 18 people, blame began to fall on the pilot and the hilltop runway. • The Air India Express flight skidded off the runway and down a hill after landing in Kozhikode, India. NEW DELHI - The sky had turned black. Air India Express Flight 1344 was midair, roaring through a thunderstorm toward the city of Kozhikode's tabletop runway, which has a sudden drop-off at its end and was known to be potentially dangerous. The pilot, a decorated military flier, circled the airport once, then twice. With visibility so bad, he radioed the control tower to switch runways. On his second attempt at landing Friday night, he apparently hit Runway 10 too late - more than a half mile into the 1.6-mile strip - and with the wind at his back, which was exactly the scenario that Indian aviation experts had warned against. "All the flights that land on Runway 10 in tailwind conditions in rain are endangering the lives of all on board," said a report submitted to India's civil aviation authorities in 2011. The plane, a Boeing 737 that was returning to southern India from Dubai, slid right off the rain-slicked runway, tumbled down a hillside and split in half. Indian officials say that 18 people, including both pilots, were killed and more than 150 injured. The plane was carrying 190 people. Rescue crews, including many villagers, rushed to the crash site within minutes and pulled people out. The plane apparently never caught fire; the relentless rain may have dampened any sparks. Survivors said they knew something was wrong the instant the wheels hit the ground. "The plane landed at such a high speed and then braked really hard," said Latheesh Muttooly, who was sitting by a window. "There's usually a jerk when you land, but this was much harder and then suddenly the plane started going faster." The overhead bins burst open. Heavy pieces of luggage fell on people's heads. "The next thing I heard was a loud crashing sound, the loudest sound I've ever heard," Mr. Muttooly said. His face smashed into the seat back in front of him, in Row 15, splitting open his chin. He was dazed. "When I opened my eyes and looked around," he said, "there was only one row in front of me." The front of the plane had torn off. With the crash investigation just starting, Indian aviation officials are already beginning to pin the blame on the pilot, not the runway. "The basic problem, as we understand it in this incident, is that on a runway of 8,500 feet, the plane landed after crossing one third of the strip, beyond 3,000 feet," Arun Kumar, India's director general of civil aviation, said in an interview. "What normally happens under such conditions is that the pilot does a go-round and either tries to land again or not land at all, given the weather conditions. Touchdown must happen within the first 500 feet of the strip." "The rules of aviation are too well laid out," Mr. Kumar added. "Either the pilot goes around or should not have landed at all." The crash was very similar to another, much deadlier Indian air accident at a tabletop runway in 2010, which had prompted a closer look at similar hilltop runways. India has around four to five of them, officials said. The 2010 crash involved the same kind of plane, a Boeing 737 belonging to the same airline, Air India Express, and a similar runway with steep gorges on each side. In that case, the aircraft skidded off a hill in Mangalore, fell into a valley and burst into flames. More than 150 people were killed. After that, the Indian civil aviation ministry formed a safety advisory council that included aviation experts such as Capt. Mohan Ranganathan, a pilot who wrote the 2011 report warning that Kozhikode's Runway 10 was dangerous. Some of his recommendations, like adding a safety zone at the end of the runway, were heeded, at least in part. But on Saturday, Captain Ranganathan said in an interview that he was dismayed to learn that the pilot tried to land in the very circumstances that he had warned about. "Landing in rain with a tailwind is the most dangerous way you can think of landing," he said, especially on Kozhikode's Runway 10. For a plane to crash, a bunch of things usually have to go wrong, which seems to have been the case in Flight 1344. The runway was clearly a concern. The captain, Deepak Sathe, a former Indian Air Force test pilot, seems to have misjudged the distance he needed to bring the plane to a halt. A 2011 report warned that Kozhikode's Runway 10 was dangerous in some conditions This is monsoon season, the time of year of lashing rains, and Captain Sathe was trying to bring down a plane in the middle of a torrential downpour. For the past several days, Kerala State, where Kozhikode is, and which has a long history of ties to the Persian Gulf, has been drenched. India's meteorological department had issued a red alert for several areas, including Kozhikode, on Friday. Earlier that same day more than 20 people were killed in a landslide in another part of the state after a hillside of rock and sludge crashed into a workers' hostel on a tea plantation. The way the announcements were made to the passengers didn't help either, passengers said. The cabin crew used Hindi and English, India's most widely spoken languages. But this was a special repatriation flight, run by the Indian government to rescue citizens who had been stranded in the Persian Gulf during the coronavirus pandemic. Most passengers were working-class people (and their families) from Kerala State who had been performing jobs such as clearing tables or driving trucks. They spoke Malayalam, Kerala's tongue. "They had no idea they had to keep wearing their seatbelts," said Riyas Madaparambathu, another passenger who had been working at a restaurant in Dubai. He said more lives might have been saved if the crew had made the announcements in Malayalam, "so that everyone could have understood the instructions." On Saturday, officials said they had found the aircraft's black box. Most of the surviving passengers remained in more than a dozen hospitals. Indian media reported that after some had tested positive for coronavirus, survivors were not allowed to leave the hospitals just yet. Many were clearly shaken up. "The flight had been going fine," said Muhammed Ali Meethal, who spoke by phone from his hospital bed. "The pilot announced that we were going to land. There was no warning or signal of any kind of impending doom." But after the plane skittered off the runway and down the hillside, he said, "There was a thud. And then a complete silence. I could smell death." "I want to erase these memories," he said, breaking into tears. "I need to keep the fear aside." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/08/world/asia/india-plane-crash-dubai.html Back to Top Kerala plane crash: 'Black boxes' from Air India jet found Investigators have found the so-called "black boxes" of a plane that crashed in the southern India state of Kerala, killing at least 18 people. The Air India Express plane, en route from Dubai, skidded off the runway during bad weather before breaking in two while landing at Kozhikode airport. There were 190 people on board the flight and one official said it was a "miracle" the toll was not higher. It is still India's worst passenger air crash in a decade. The flight was repatriating Indians stranded by the coronavirus crisis. First responders to the crash have been asked to go into quarantine. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he was "pained" by the accident. What do we know about the crash? Flight IX 1134 was carrying 184 passengers, including 10 infants, and six crew when it attempted to land at the airport in Kozhikode, formerly known as Calicut. The Boeing 737 aircraft crashed at 19:40 local time (14:10 GMT) on Friday. Indian media said the pilots could not see the runway during a first attempt at landing due to heavy rain. When they did touch down, the plane is said to have landed 1,000 metres beyond the threshold of the runway before skidding off and sliding into a ditch. The impact broke the plane in two. Images from the scene showed the fuselage shredded, with the blue seats from the jet scattered along the ground. Kozhikode has a table-top airport, a challenge for air crew during difficult landings as they typically have steep drops at one or both ends of the runway. Both the pilots were among the dead. Nearly 150 people are being treated in hospital. What's the latest on the investigation? India's Aviation Minister Hardeep Singh Puri visited the scene of the crash on Saturday, where he announced the recovery of the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, which could prove crucial to investigating the crash. He praised the lead pilot and said it was too early to say what the precise cause of the accident was. "We have to be grateful that the casualties are only this much," he said. "The aircraft fell 35 feet [10 metres] down and rescue people were able to reach there immediately, cut the body of the plane and retrieve people trapped inside." An unnamed official told AFP: "Fuel had leaked out so it was a miracle that the plane did not catch fire, the toll could have been much higher," one senior emergency official at the scene said." Twenty-nine-year old Sharfudeen was so excited about returning home that he posted on social media that they would be back within hours. He never made it, one of the victims of the crash at Kozhikode Airport. His baby daughter and his wife Amina were injured and are being treated in hospital. "The doctors told us that she is fine. She has been shifted to the intensive care ward,'' Hani Hasan, her uncle, told the BBC. "She was constantly asking for her husband. We did not tell her anything,'' he added. At least half of the passengers were those who had lost their jobs or whose visas had expired. The remaining where largely Indian nationals who had got stranded in Dubai because of the coronavirus lockdown. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53706976 Back to Top How do pilots deal with an engine failure on takeoff? An engine failure on takeoff is one of the most challenging situations a pilot can face. The sudden asymmetry of thrust can cause the nose to lurch to one side, requiring immediate and instinctive reactions. If the engine has caught fire, alarm bells will be ringing (physically and metaphorically) and lights will be flashing. It's the pilot's job to block all these out and focus on the task at hand. However alarming this may seem, this situation will not be alien to the pilot. The likelihood is that they have never experienced this for real before, but they will have seen it scores of times in the simulator. Every six months, pilots are put through their paces to ensure that they are up to speed with emergency procedures. The time in the simulator also to gives them the chance to practice these scenarios should they ever happen for real. De-rated takeoff Contrary to popular belief, aircraft very rarely use full power during takeoff. Runways at most international airports such as London Heathrow and Los Angeles are nearly 2.5 miles long, which is more than enough for even the heaviest of aircraft to get airborne. So why increase the strain on the engines when you can utilize the runway length by accelerating more slowly and still getting safely airborne by the end? Manufacturers design the aircraft and engines to be able to get airborne using as little engine power as possible. This is known as a de-rated takeoff. Not only does save on engine wear, but it also reduces the noise experienced by those who live and work near the airport. However, this creates a trade-off. Take off too far down the runway and you run the risk of going off the end should something unexpected happen. Take off too soon and you're using more engine power than you need to, increasing engine wear and fuel burn. A happy medium needs to be found between the two - a takeoff point which optimizes engine power whilst leaving enough runway to stop if the need arises. On a twin-engine aircraft such as the 787 Dreamliner, the loss of power from one engine during the takeoff run is one of the more serious events that could happen. Although this is highly unlikely, we always plan for the worst possible scenario. Should an engine fail just as the aircraft lifts off, the performance must still ensure that it reaches a height of 35 feet by the end of the runway on the power of the remaining engine. This is the key part of the takeoff performance. Even though an aircraft can safely climb away from the runway on just one engine, should the failure happen whilst still on the ground, it would be preferable for the pilots to reject the takeoff and stop on the runway. However, there comes a point where there will not be enough runway remaining in which to stop safely. So how do we know where this point is? Before every takeoff, the pilots must calculate the speeds, flap setting and engine power required to take off safely. This includes the engine failure scenario. One of the speeds that are calculated is called V1 - "the maximum speed in the takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance." If an event occurs before the aircraft reaches the V1 speed, the pilots know that they are able to stop safely. Any events occurring after V1, the pilots must continue to get airborne. The decision to stop or go isn't made in the heat of the moment - it's a binary decision calculated at a time of low workload. The critical speeds: V1, Vr and V2 In order to understand how we control an engine failure on takeoff, it's important to understand some key speeds. The values of V1, Vr and V2 are all calculated before each departure and determine how we fly the takeoff, either with both engines running normally or with an engine failure. V1 V1 is the speed at which the aircraft can both reject the takeoff, stoping safely on the runway and also at which it can continue to take off safely. To put this into more practical terms, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines V1 as "the maximum speed during takeoff at which the pilot must take the first action to stop the aircraft." It is often referred to as the "takeoff decision speed" but this isn't totally accurate. The actual decision to reject the takeoff must be made before V1 has been reached. This gives the pilot enough time to react and make the first action to reject the takeoff before the aircraft reaches the V1 speed. If the decision to stop is made at V1, by the time the first action is taken to stop, the aircraft will be traveling in excess of the V1 speed, putting it at risk of going off the end of the runway. Seeing as some runways finish in the sea or with steep embankments, this is undesirable, to say the least. The V1 for any departure will depend on a range of variables such as aircraft weight, runway length, air pressure, air temperature and wind speed and direction. It also varies with the runway condition. If a runway is dry, the stopping efficiency is much better than if the runway is wet or slippery. As a result, the V1 will be slower on a wet runway. This means there will be more runway remaining on which to stop when the V1 speed is reached. If a problem occurs after V1, we must continue to get airborne. Even in the event of an engine failure, we can still climb away safely. The performance which we calculate before departure is based on this very event. Vr Vr is the speed at which we gently ease back on the control column and rotate the nose into the air. However, it is still not quite fast enough to fly. In the few seconds it takes to rotate the nose up toward the initial climb angle, the continued acceleration will take the speed to V2. V2 V2 is known as the takeoff safety speed, the speed at which the aircraft will climb safely in the event of an engine failure. As we'll see later, flying at, or above, V2 is critical when flying the engine failure maneuver. Following the definitions above, it is clear that V1 and Vr must always be less than V2. However, V1 can be less than or the same as Vr. Engine failure on liftoff The most challenging time for an engine to fail is between V1 and V2. In this window, we are going too fast to abort the takeoff but too slow to fly safely. In some situations, like with a wet or slippery runway, the gap between V1 and Vr may be quite considerable. At high weights on a 787 Dreamliner, it could be around 30 mph. This means that even if we know that an engine has failed or caught fire, we must ignore all the alarms going off and continue to Vr before taking the aircraft into the air. There are a variety of reasons why an engine might fail so instead of immediately trying to identify the cause, we simply identify the fact that is has happened. Depending on the severity of the failure, this could be blindingly obvious or so subtle we barely notice. Keep it straight In the case of a severe and sudden failure, there could be a loud bang with the aircraft's nose swinging in one direction or another. When there is a near-instantaneous loss of power on one side of the aircraft, the power from the remaining side causes the aircraft to swing in the opposite direction. Our first action in this situation is to keep the nose straight by applying the correct rudder input with our feet. We are aiming to keep the aircraft straight and fly it through imaginary goal posts at the end of the runway. If the nose swings left, we instinctively push our right foot forward, applying right-rudder, to regain the runway centerline. Conversely, if the nose swings right, we apply left rudder. Depending on the severity of the failure, we may have to apply full rudder or only a small amount - whatever it takes to keep the nose tracking straight. We then keep this rudder input until we are airborne. This is a basic flying skill, taught to cadet pilots during flight school on twin-engine propeller aircraft. Not only does it control the aircraft, but it also gives us a clue as to which engine has failed. For those of you who have flown twin-engine prop aircraft, the phrase "right leg dead, right engine dead" will be well known. This means that the leg which is not doing anything (dead) is the same as the engine that has failed. Rotate With the nose tracking down the runway, we must wait until the aircraft speed reaches Vr. This could be immediate or it could be several seconds later. When the aircraft reaches Vr, the pilot flying the aircraft (PF) pulls back on the control column. The aim is to attain V2 by the time we are 35 feet above the ground. However, with an engine failure, there is a difference to a normal takeoff. The rotation of an airliner is normally around 2 to 3 degrees a second, reaching the 15 degrees nose-up altitudes in around five seconds. In the engine failure case, because of the reduced power, the aircraft will accelerate at a slower rate. If we rotate at the normal rate, there's a good chance that we will get airborne before reaching V2 - a dangerous situation to be in. If this were to happen, the only way to gain those extra few knots of airspeed is by pushing the nose down and reducing the rate of climb. Not something you want to be doing when you're practically skimming treetops. As a result, it's imperative that we rotate at a slower rate, around 1.5 to 2.5 degrees a second, giving the aircraft time to accelerate to V2. This results in a nose-up angle of around 12 to 13 degrees. TO/GA reference line On the 787, the HUD (head-up display) plays a major part in enabling us to fly this critical maneuver accurately. As part of the display, a line called the TOGA reference line helps us fly the correct pitch (nose-up angle) on takeoff. With TO/GA (takeoff/go-around) mode selected, the TO/GA reference line gives us a target to aim for which will achieve the optimum climb away from the runway. In the case of an engine failure, flying this line accurately is key. As we rotate the aircraft at a slower rate, we aim to pitch the nose toward, but not above, the TO/GA reference line. If we pitch too high and point the nose above the line, the speed will reduce, possibly below V2. If the speed starts to decay, the TO/GA reference line will drop, telling us to reduce the pitch of the nose. The climb out With the rudder keeping us straight and the pitch angle flown accurately keeping the speed above V2, the aircraft will fly away from the ground, albeit at a very slow rate. With this climb established, the landing gear is raised, reducing drag and improving climb performance. It may take around 30 seconds or so to reach 200 feet, at which point the autopilot can be engaged. By making maximum use of the automatics, it enables us to sit back and assess what has happened. Both pilots are then able to take a good look at the engine indications to start diagnosing which engine has failed. It may not be immediately obvious so careful analysis of the available data is critical in ensuring that we don't shut down the wrong engine. As the aircraft reaches 400 feet, if there has been severe damage or there is an engine fire, we can start to carry out the first of the checklists. As the PF continues to monitor the flight path of the aircraft like a hawk, the pilot monitoring (PM) shuts the engine down. On the 787 this involves moving four switches or levers, all of which must be confirmed by the PF to ensure that we shut down the correct engine. With the engine secured, we can then focus on continuing the climb and retracting the flaps before deciding our next course of action. Bottom line Whilst one of the more serious failures that could happen to an aircraft, an engine failure on takeoff is the one event which is practiced most by pilots. As a result, should this once in a lifetime event occur, the pilots will be well versed in what to do. The key to a successful takeoff with engine failure is a slow rotation. After this, with the speed above V2, the aircraft will climb away from the ground. With the flight path of the aircraft secure, only then will the crew start to look at the engine problem and begin the process of shutting it down. https://thepointsguy.com/news/pilots-deal-with-engine-failure-takeoff/ Back to Top Two months after plane crash, 193 Pakistan pilots get notice over 'fake' licence • The scandal over pilot licences in Pakistan emerged from an investigation into the crash of a Pakistan International Airlines plane on May 22 in Karachi that killed 97 people. ISLAMABAD: Pakistan's aviation regulator has issued show-cause notices to 193 pilots suspected of having "dubious" flying licence after completing the scrutiny process of 262 pilots in the wake of a major scandal, according to a media report on Monday. The scandal over pilot licences in Pakistan emerged from an investigation into the crash of a Pakistan International Airlines plane on May 22 in Karachi that killed 97 people. The inquiry determined that nearly one-third of Pakistan's pilots cheated on exams but still received licences from the country's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The CAA was tasked by the Supreme Court on July 21 to immediately complete an inquiry against pilots of the national carrier, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA), following revelation by the aviation minister about fake documents of scores of pilots. The CAA after completing the scrutiny process of the record of 262 pilots issued show-cause notices to 193 of them, the Dawn News reported. The CAA inquiry board found 850 pilots with suspected credentials out of which 262 licences were found "dubious". The board had grounded all the 262 pilots, while the federal Cabinet had approved cancellation of the licences of 28 pilots out of these 262, the report said, quoting sources. Of the 193 pilots, who were issued show-cause notices, 140 have submitted their replies and they are being called in batches by the inquiry committee to explain their positions. A senior official said notices to the remaining pilots could not be sent because there were "technical mistakes" in the names of some pilots and their registration or reference numbers, which are being resolved. A five-member committee constituted by the Aviation Division to investigate the pilots' cases has been scrutinising the credentials of pilots. The Aviation Division has referred to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) the cases against five CAA officials, who had been suspended for their alleged involvement in issuing dubious licences. It has also sought FIA's help against the CAA's information technology experts involved in the examination scam. The scandal prompted the US in July to downgrade the safety rating of Pakistan's aviation system and block the country's airlines from launching air services to America. The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said it put Pakistan in category-2 rating, which means airlines from Pakistan can't start new flights to the US. Also, US airlines can't sell seats on Pakistani flights, a practice called code-sharing that is common among other international airlines. Currently there are no regular scheduled flights between the US and Pakistan. The European Union last month also banned PIA from flying to Europe for at least six months. https://www.newindianexpress.com/world/2020/aug/10/two-months-after-plane-crash-193-pakistan-pilots-get-notice-over-fake-licence-2181545.html Back to Top Would EMAS have prevented the Kerala air tragedy? Engineered materials arrestor system • An Air India Express plane overshot the runway at Kozhikode airport & broke in two, killing 18 people. The Kozhikode air crash was the second incident in India of an aircraft overshooting the runway on a tabletop airport. The first, in Mangalore in 2010, also involved an Air India Express plane and claimed over 150 lives. The kozhikode crash has once again opened up a debate, whether such airports should have an extra layer of safety mechanism to prevent such incidents. A safety bed: Aircraft overshooting the runway isn't uncommon but as the Calicut airport accident shows it can have devastating consequences sometimes. To prevent such runway excursions, some of the world's major airports have a safety mechanism called arrestor beds to slow down or halt a plane if it overshoots the runway. Such arrestors are especially important for airports that cannot afford to have a long safety area beyond the runway either due to lack of space or due to the nature of the airport (table tops for instance). The idea: The basic idea behind arrestors is that the "soft ground" that they create deforms easily under the weight of the aircraft that has overshot the runway. As the aircraft's tires crush the material it is made of, the drag slows it down. Aviation regulators have worked with the industry, have come up with engineered solutions for the design of these arrestors as well as the material that goes into them. Mathematical models have helped predict aircraft stopping distances which have been further validated by full-scale aircraft testing. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/would-emas-have-prevented-the-kerala-air-tragedy/articleshow/77454326.cms Back to Top Wizz Air hands task of safety oversight to EASA Wizz Air has brought its operations under the European Union Aviation Safety Agency as its single safety oversight authority. The Hungarian-based carrier has taken advantage of European Union legislation intended to enhance supervision as airline business models have changed. This legislation says that the carriers with operational bases in several EU member states have become more prominent and important. This means the authorities for operating licences and air operator certificates are no longer necessarily identical, and there is a need to improve the efficiency of oversight of such carriers. As of 1 August EASA, at Wizz Air's request, is acting as the competent authority for safety oversight of the carrier. Hungarian regulators will retain licence and route permit authority for Wizz Air The budget airline's air operator's certificate will still identify Hungary as the carrier's state of operator, and the Hungarian regulator will have control over the operating licence and route permits. "This regulatory transition supports the multinational expansion of the Wizz Air Group," the company states. "EASA's oversight enables the airline to enhance co-operation with national civil aviation authorities across its current and prospective markets." Wizz Air chief Jozsef Varadi says the carrier is the first in the EU to make the transition to the "groundbreaking" regulatory scheme. "As the centralised competent authority for Wizz Air's operations, EASA will ensure an internationally recognised high standard of oversight for the airline," says EASA executive director Patrick Ky. The UK division of Wizz Air - established in 2017 - is "not affected" by the change, the carrier states. Wizz Air has been certified by the UK Civil Aviation Authority, it adds, and has always been under the UK regulator's oversight. This will remain the case regardless of the future relationship between the UK and the EU following the 'Brexit' withdrawal. https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/wizz-air-hands-task-of-safety-oversight-to-easa/139674.article Back to Top SkyWest Ailines pilot, 38, arrested 30 MINUTES before takeoff for trying to fly his plane 'drunk' at 10.30am • Russel Duszak was arrested around 8am Wednesday morning at the Rapid City, South Dakota airport • TSA agents noted that the 38-year-old pilot smelled of alcohol and found that he had about the legal 0.04 blood-alcohol content • The Salt Lake City native was scheduled to pilot a flight back to his hometown at 8:30am • He has been suspended from his position with SkyWest Airlines (AP) Police in South Dakota have arrested a SkyWest Airlines pilot for being intoxicated at the Rapid City airport just 30 minutes before he was scheduled to fly. Rapid City police were notified shortly after 8am on Wednesday that the pilot smelled of alcohol. Police say they determined 38-year-old pilot Russel Duszak was in violation of a South Dakota law prohibiting the operation of an aircraft with a blood-alcohol content above 0.04 percent. A SkyWest pilot scheduled to fly a Delta flight from Rapid City, South Dakota to Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday morning was arrested at the airport for having an illegal blood-alcohol content level. Above, a stock image of a SkyWest plane +2 Delta Connection 4574 was bound for Duszak's home of Salt Lake City, Utah. SkyWest said in a statement that it holds its employees 'to the highest standards of professionalism,' and apologized to passengers for the delay. The flight was scheduled to depart at 8:30am, but had to be pushed back until 10:30am so that a new crew could be brought in. The airline based in St. George, Utah, says the pilot has been placed on administrative leave and removed from flying duties during an investigation. Passengers on the Delta flight, which was being operated by the local SkyWest airlines, said they were first told that the plane wouldn't start. It was only after some passengers noticed a police officer in the gangway, speaking to a flight member, that passengers were told a different story. 'They (airline representatives) just said they had a crew issue,' Dayrn Farmer, a hunter on his way home to Oregon, told KOTA. Farmer was one of many that missed connection because of the incident. Duszak has no record of prior alcohol-related arrests in his home state of Utah. The crime he faces carries a punishment of up to one year in jail and a fine of $2,000. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3875884/SkyWest-pilot-suspected-drunk-arrested-South-Dakota.html Back to Top Other Voices: The Link Between Diversity and Aviation Safety Aviation safety is dependent on synergy, not just in the flight deck, but within the flight department as a whole. The hidden dangers of miscommunication and unconscious bias deteriorate our safety margins, limit our access to new talent, and hinder our operational functionality. It's time for the third wave of aviation safety, and that must include unconscious bias training. Following a series of fatal air crashes in the 1970s, the aviation industry became focused on how humans interact and communicate. A common trend of these crashes exposed the toxicity of the singular-captain mentality and revealed the necessity to educate aviators how to operate more collaboratively. New training protocols, known as Crew Resource Management (CRM), rapidly washed over the industry and became the international standard still in practice today. The initiative was so successful that the medical sector adopted its own form of CRM. The second wave of aviation safety came decades later in the form of Safety Management Systems (SMS). This system is a comprehensive approach to safety which includes human factors training and the measuring of one's flight department safety culture. Each wave of safety system amalgamates the importance of human interaction, communication, and collaboration as essential components to aviation safety. Yet both systems overlook the fundamental structure that controls how humans interact and communicate-our unconscious bias. THE CASE FOR UNCONSCIOUS BIAS TRAINING Unconscious bias, also known as implicit bias, is commonplace. We all have it. Despite the negative connotation around the concept, not all biases are bad. In fact, biases can be helpful. It's how we can quickly determine categories for safety: pet the house cat and leave the lion. That being said, biases formulated through societal and cultural influences can lead to the mischaracterization of a group or the perpetuation of outdated models. When this happens, our ability to interact collaboratively is diminished and safety is compromised. Unchecked unconscious bias can morph into discrimination, which results in a structure inherently unwelcoming to those that don't fit a specific default standard. Recent aviation research revealed that bias and discrimination were significant barriers in both the recruitment and retention of women in aviation. Unchecked bias results in a highly homogenized industry, which diminishes aviation's ability to innovate and collaborate, and it ultimately deteriorates safety. Research shows that groups with diverse backgrounds are more creative and yield higher earning potential. Further research revealed evidence that when these groups operated in a collaborative way, they made better decisions. In aviation, better decisions mean increased safety. The third wave of aviation safety must include unconscious bias training and coaching. Aviation regulatory bodies, trade associations and their leaders must demand this. Without understanding how our bias is negatively impacting our industry, we will be limiting our own success. Unchecked bias has the immediate effect of deteriorating safety culture and the perpetual consequence of restricting the industry's access to a diverse talent pool. TAPPING THE TALENT POOL In the recruitment, hiring, and promotion of individuals, unconscious bias can negatively affect the organization as a whole. We see this occur in other industries. When musicians auditioned behind a screen concealing their gender, it increased a female musician's likelihood to advance by 30 percent. Accessing the top talent, those best for a job, will require hiring managers and leaders to question their hiring practices. To really understand where biases may be affecting the recruitment and retention of talent, organizations need to become educated on unconscious bias and use this lens to analyze structure and policy. Unconscious bias exists even if a business genuinely pursues more diversity in its hiring process. Leaders and hiring executives might not be able to completely discard their unconscious bias. Therefore, education and the practice of recognizing unconscious bias is the preliminary step. Through unconscious bias training, coaching, and the process of implementing blind recruitment practices, leaders can ensure they are not limiting their own access to top talent. The training is needed not just at the executive level of an organization, but throughout the flight department and inside the flight deck. Understanding our biases through unconscious bias training and coaching will allow us to work in a more collaborative way, become more efficient and productive. Most importantly, it's a necessary step for aviation safety. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/blogs/other-voices-link-between-diversity-and-aviation-safety Back to Top Survey Says FAA Inspectors Feel Pressure To Accommodate Business An independent survey of FAA safety division employees suggests they feel pressure to accommodate industry demands at the expense of safety. The Mitre Corporation survey was sent to 7,000 employees in the aviation safety group and 25 percent responded. Those who took the time painted a picture of a regulatory agency influenced by the financial concerns of the companies it regulates. The survey was sent to Congress on Friday and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said it revealed "a disturbing pattern of senior officials at a Federal agency rolling over for industry." FAA Administrator Steve Dickson, who fared pretty well in the survey for his posture of standing up to Boeing, agreed with DeFazio and said the "problems" revealed by the survey will be addressed. "It is completely unacceptable that there are employees who lack confidence that their safety concerns are taken seriously." The respondents said that if they dig their heels in on safety issues that cost industry money, the companies complain to their bosses and politicians, which results in directives to find "win-win" solutions to contentious issues. The report said the field inspectors believe FAA brass "are overly concerned with achieving the business-oriented outcomes of industry stakeholders and are not held accountable for safety-related decisions" and that takes a toll further down the food chain. "There is a fallout of us not being able to do our job," one employee said. "Accidents happen and people get killed." https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/survey-says-faa-inspectors-feel-pressure-to-accommodate-business/ Back to Top Recorders of overrun 737 recovered as 'long landing' report emerges Investigators have retrieved the flight recorders from the Air India Express Boeing 737-800 which crashed at Kozhikode, as preliminary indications suggest the jet landed long before overrunning. Civil aviation minister Hardeep Singh Puri says an inquiry has been ordered into the 7 August accident involving flight IX1344 from Dubai, adding that the recorders have been recovered. "Findings of this investigation will be made public," he says. Multiple Indian media outlets are carrying details of purported official preliminary findings given to the ministry - yet to be authenticated by FlightGlobal - confirming the aircraft had initially attempted an ILS approach to runway 28, but executed a go-around owing to heavy rain. Its crew subsequently requested an approach to the opposite-direction runway 10, and was cleared for the ILS(Z) procedure. The crew was then given weather data, runway conditions, and landing clearance. The preliminary findings reportedly state that emergency vehicles had already been on standby as a precaution, given the conditions. Air traffic controllers, they add, observed the aircraft did not touch down until it was abeam taxiway C. Taxiway C, according to Airports Authority of India charts, is situated about 1,000m from the threshold of runway 10, which has an overall length of 2,860m. This would have left some 1,860m of the normal runway, not counting a 90m overrun safety area, in which to bring the aircraft to a halt. Weather conditions at the time indicate a tailwind component of around 11kt. Cirium fleets data lists the aircraft involved as having been configured with 186 seats, which means flight IX1344 had been virtually full. Eighteen fatalities have been confirmed by the carrier. https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/recorders-of-overrun-737-recovered-as-long-landing-report-emerges/139688.article Back to Top Qantas Plans Boeing 787 Antarctica Sightseeing Flights While Australians may be unable to travel internationally due to COVID-19, Qantas and travel firm Antarctica Flights have got together to offer possibly the world's most unique scenic flight. Previously, Qantas used one of its iconic Boeing 747s for the 12 to 13-hour trip to Antarctica. Now that they are all retired, the journey will be made using a state-of-the-art Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner. Starting from November, travelers will be able to take in the frozen continent, with departures leaving from Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney. What is extra special about the flight, besides the stunning views, is that you do not need a passport. As the 236 seat aircraft is taking off from and touching down in Australia, the trip is regarded as being a domestic flight. Expert lectures give talks about Antarctica When talking to 7News about the flights, Antarctica Flights CEO Bas Bosschieter called them a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity." "There is no passport or luggage needed for an Antarctica Flight, you can even go in board shorts if you wish. I personally think it's the best answer to the question 'What did you get up to on the weekend? Just popped down to Antarctica." "Whilst it is very difficult for Australians to travel overseas at this time, our Antarctica Flights guests will be able to visit another continent in a day." During the flight, passengers are all provided with drinks and offered a meal service while watching videos about what they can expect to see. The Antarctica flights also have expert lecturers onboard, who give talks and then walk through the cabin answering specific questions. You start to see ice after three hours The flight itself is reasonably long, with not much to see until the aircraft is about three hours into the journey. It is then that passengers will start to see float ice on the watery blue expanse below. Once over the mainland, the plane hugs the coasts as the captain takes her down to a lower altitude for better viewing. Heading inland, between several mountains, the aircraft makes a loop around the magnetic South Pole before heading home to Australia. It doesn't come cheap A word of warning: while this sounds like heaps of fun, it doesn't come cheap! Prices for seats on one of the scheduled seven flights start from AUD 1,199 ($857) for a place over the wing up to AUD 7,999 ($5,714) for business class. The flights will operate between November and February, which is when the continent sees its best weather. To find out more about Antarctica Flights, click on the link. The flights over Antarctica became possible using planes with two engines after 2011 when the ETOPS rating for twin-engine jets was raised from 180 minutes to 330 minutes. This effectively meant that twin-engine aircraft like the Boeing 787 can now fly virtually anywhere. https://simpleflying.com/qantas-antarctica-sightseeing-flights/ TheUSC Aviation Safety & Security ProgramWill Offer Online Classes This Fall The following upcoming courses, including NEW Safety Performance Indicators course, will take place in our virtual Webex classrooms. Software Safety Philosophies and methods of developing software, analyzing software, and managing a software safety program. Online Course August 17-20, 2020 4 Days Tuition: $2250 SeMS Aviation Security Management Systems Managing and implementing aviation security measures at medium to small size aircraft operators, all airports, and Indirect Air Carriers, with emphasis on risk assessment and cyber security. Online Course August 17-21, 2020 4.5 Days Tuition: $2650 Accident/Incident Response Preparedness This course is designed for individuals who are involved in either preparing emergency response plans or responding to incidents and accidents as a representative of their organization. This updated course has been extended to four full days to integrate communications in the digital age. Online Course August 24-27, 2020 4 Days Tuition: $2250 Human Factors in Aviation Safety This course presents human factors in a manner that can be readily understood and applied by aviation practitioners in all phases of aviation operations. Emphasis is placed on identifying the causes of human error, predicting how human error can affect performance, and applying countermeasures to reduce or eliminate its effects. Online Course August 24-28, 2020 4.5 Days Tuition: $2650 Safety Management for Aviation Maintenance This course provides supervisors with aviation safety principles and practices needed to manage the problems associated with aircraft maintenance operations. In addition, it prepares attendees to assume safety responsibilities in their areas of operation. Online Course August 31-September 4, 2020 4.5 Days Tuition: $2650 Threat and Error Managment This course provides students with sufficient knowledge to develop a TEM program and a LOSA program within their organizations. Online Course September 9-11, 2020 2.5 Days Tuition: $1375 Aviation Safety Management Systems Providing the skills and practical methods to plan, manage, and maintain an effective Aviation Safety Management System. Special emphasis for safety managers, training, flight department and maintenance managers and supervisors, pilots, air traffic controllers, dispatchers, and schedulers. Online Course September 14-25, 2020 9.5 Days Tuition: $3750 Hazard Effects and Control Strategies This course focuses on underlying physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and effects, and hazard control strategies. The following hazards are specifically addressed: electrical hazards, electrostatic discharge, toxicity, kinetic hazards, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, thermal hazards, noise, fire and explosion, high pressure, etc. Online Course September 14-15, 2020 2 Days Tuition: $1200 Damage Assessment for System Safety Sophisticated mathematical models and methods have been developed to estimate the level of impact of a hazardous condition. This course provides an overall understanding of these methods to help managers and system safety analysis reviewers understand the analysis conducted and results obtained by the experts in the field. Specifically, methods for modeling the impact of fire and explosion, debris distribution from an explosion, and toxic gas dispersion are discussed. Online Course September 16-18, 2020 3 Days Tuition: $1625 Safety Management Systems for Ground Operation Safety This course provides airport, air carrier and ground service company supervisors and managers with practices that will reduce ground operation mishaps to personnel and equipment. It provides an understanding of how ground operations safety management is an essential part or an airport's or air carrier's SMS. Online Course September 21-23, 2020 2.5 Days Tuition: $1375 Safety Performance Indicators This course teaches how SPI's are developed, monitored, analyzed and modified in order for an organization to correctly know its safety performance. The course utilizes guidance provided in ICAO Annex 19 and the ICAO Safety Management Manual Doc. 9859. Online Course September 24-25, 2020 2 Days Tuition: $1200 Earn Credit for FlightSafety International Master Technician-Management Program Students taking the following USC courses will earn elective credits towards FlightSafety International's Master Technician-Management Program • Human Factors in Aviation Safety • Gas Turbine Accident Investigation • Helicopter Accident Investigation • Safety Management for Aviation Maintenance • Safety Management for Ground Operations Safety • Accident/Incident Response Preparedness Earn Credit for National Business Aviation Association Certified Aviation Manager Exam Students taking the following USC courses will earn two points toward completing the application for the National Business Aviation Association Certified Aviation Manager Exam. • Aviation Safety Management Systems • Accident/Incident Response Preparedness • Human Factors in Aviation Safety • Aircraft Accident Investigation • SeMS Aviation Security Management Systems For further details, please visit our website or use the contact information below. Email: aviation@usc.edu Telephone: +1 (310) 342-1345 Photo Credit: PFC Brendan King, USMC Back to Top Back to Top Swinburne University Capstone Research Projects 2020 - Airline pax preferences Study Airline Passenger Carrier Preference Research Project 2020 The Low-Cost Carrier (LCC) business model has disrupted the aviation industry. It has generated new passenger demand, provided passengers with more choice and created many competitive challenges for the traditional Full-Service Carriers (FSC). As the global airline market continues to change and adapt to new challenges, airline passenger preferences and intent to travel may also change. As part of our undergraduate research project at Swinburne University of Technology we are conducting a survey on passenger preferences regarding the decision to fly between LCC and FSC airlines. This survey asks for your views on various issues associated with airline choice and seeks to better understand passenger risk perceptions and the perceived value offered by each airline model. You will be asked to complete an online questionnaire, which also includes an explanatory statement. The study takes approximately 20 minutes to complete. To access the survey, please go to the following link: https://swinuw.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_3wwfJDvc7chU3Cl Participants who complete the study will be eligible to enter a draw to win an iPad. This research project is being supervised by Peter Renshaw at the Department of Aviation, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. If you have any questions, please contact Peter at prenshaw@swin.edu.au *** Image from: Uphues, J. (2019). Full service carrier vs. low cost carrier - What's future-proof? Retrieved from https://www.inform-software.com/blog/post/full-service-carrier-vs-low-cost-carrier-whats-future-proof Back to Top As part of our Swinburne Bachelor of Aviation undergraduate research project, we have constructed a survey for members of the aviation industry and those who have not worked in aviation to provide feedback on their attitudes and opinions about Urban Air Mobility and single-pilot and/or autonomous airline operations. If you are an active participant in the aviation industry as a passenger or through employment, we invite you to take part in this survey to help give the industry a better understanding of the general sentiment towards these emerging technologies and operational concepts. To participate please follow the link below to our online survey: https://swinuw.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9zRhPPbCfnsHH3T It should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Participants who complete the survey will be eligible to enter the draw to WIN AN iPad. Thank you very much for your time. This research project is being supervised by Peter Renshaw at the Department of Aviation, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. If you have any questions, please contact Peter at prenshaw@swin.edu.au Back to Top Graduate Research Survey (1) Stress and Wellbeing for Global Aviation Professionals Dear colleagues, I am inviting you to participate in a research project on wellbeing in the aviation industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. This situation has affected aviation professionals around the world, and this research seeks to identify wellbeing strategies that work across professions, employers, families, and nations. All responses to this survey are anonymous. The findings of this research will inform future work by the USC Aviation Safety and Security Program and the Flight Safety Foundation to improve wellbeing for aviation professionals during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Please click or copy the link below to access the survey, and please share it with any interested colleagues. https://usc.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cC2nlWEAazl22TX This research will support a treatise towards a Master of Science in Applied Psychology degree at the University of Southern California's Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. The researcher is also on the staff of the USC Aviation Safety and Security Program. Thank you, and please contact us with any questions, Daniel Scalese - Researcher scalese@usc.edu Michael Nguyen - Faculty Advisor nguyenmv@usc.edu Back to Top Graduate Research Survey (2) Critical Evaluation of the Gaps in SMS Debriefing Tools and Development of Potential Solutions I am inviting you to take part in a study of Feedback within Aviation Safety Management Systems. An airline/organisation Safety Management System (SMS) relies on pilot safety reports (ASAP or ASR) or data (FOQA, FDM) to discover hazards and threats in the operation. In return, the pilots depend on up to date information from the airline's safety department to make sound decisions regarding safety. The safety department can accomplish that by debriefing or giving feedback on the safety reports or data. A literature review of safety report feedback/debrief within Safety Management Systems showed that safety reports are not fully debriefed. This survey aims to gather data regarding pilots' perspective of safety report/safety data debriefing. In addition, the survey also aims to find out the opinions of a potential solution. This study is undertaken as part of a thesis for an Air Safety Management Master of Science degree at City, University of London. https://cityunilondon.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8eadW14UUZYaurj Bengt Jansson Back to Top GRADUATE RESEARCH SURVEY (3) Dear Participants, You are being asked to participate in a research study of your opinions and attitudes about stress and mental health. This research started almost two years ago. The purpose of this study is to examine mental health issues in aviation, specifically Part 121 airline pilots. During this study, you will be asked to complete a brief online survey about your opinions on various life circumstances, stress, and mental health topics. This study is expected to take approximately 15 minutes of your time. In order to participate, you must possess an FAA issued Airline Transport Certificate (ATP) and you must also be currently working as a pilot for a Part 121 air carrier that is headquartered within the United States. Participation in this study is voluntary and data will be collected anonymously, stored confidentially, and you may choose to opt out of the study at any time. We sincerely appreciate your consideration and time to complete our study, as it is another small but important step towards increasing safety in aviation. Please click on the link below to complete the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/7ZG6M6L For more information, please contact: Tanya Gatlin - Student Researcher Gatlint1@my.erau.edu 281-924-1336 Dr. Scott Winter - Faculty Advisor winte25e@erau.edu 386-226-6491 Curt Lewis