Flight Safety Information - March 6, 2023 No. 044 In This Issue : Incident: Southwest B38M at Havanna on Mar 5th 2023, bird strike, engine fire : Incident: Ryanair B738 at Eindhoven on Mar 5th 2023, tyre damage on landing : Incident: VARA A320 near Adelaide on Mar 3rd 2023, first officer incapacitated : Accident: Edelweiss A343 at Phuket on Mar 2nd 2023, dropped slat panel : Incident: Atlas B744 near Charleston on Mar 2nd 2023, equipment cooling and hydraulic failure : Passenger of Business Jet Is Killed in ‘Severe Turbulence’ : Passenger Caught Smoking Mid-Air Inside Air India Aircraft Lavatory : TSA detects a cat inside a carry-on bag at the Norfolk Airport : NTSB: no CVR data for Southwest-FedEx near miss in Austin : ‘Mumbai airport’s main runway is still unsafe,' says Mangala Narasimhan former Aviation Safety Officer Incident: Southwest B38M at Havanna on Mar 5th 2023, bird strike, engine fire A Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-8 MAX, registration N8792Q performing flight WN-3923 from Havana (Cuba) to Fort Lauderdale,FL (USA), was climbing out of Havana's runway 06 when the right hand engine (LEAP) emitted three loud bangs and streaks of flames, an engine fire indication occurred, smoke developed in the cabin. The aircraft returned to Havana for a safe landing, vacated the runway and stopped on the taxiway. The aircraft was evacuated via the left hand slides, emergency services sprayed the right hand engine. The aircraft is still on the ground in Havana about 15 hours after landing back. The airline reported the aircraft suffered bird strikes to nose and engine. The aircraft was evacuated due to the smoke in the cabin. https://avherald.com/h?article=506051a3&opt=0 Incident: Ryanair B738 at Eindhoven on Mar 5th 2023, tyre damage on landing A Ryanair Boeing 737-800, registration EI-DCR performing flight FR-8282 from London Stansted,EN (UK) to Eindhoven (Netherlands) with 180 people on board, landed on Eindhoven's runway 21 but suffered a tyre damage. The aircraft vacated the runway and stopped on the parallel taxiway for about 7 minutes before continuing to the apron. The aircraft performed the return flight about 4:20 hours after landing and reached Stansted with a delay of 3:45 hours. Einhoven Airport reported air traffic at the airport was halted for about 10 minutes as result of the incident. https://avherald.com/h?article=505ffa83&opt=0 Incident: VARA A320 near Adelaide on Mar 3rd 2023, first officer incapacitated A VARA Virgin Australia Regional Airlines Airbus A320-200, registration VH-VNB performing flight VA-717 from Adelaide,SA to Perth,WA (Australia), was enroute at FL320 about 240nm westnorthwest of Adelaide about 30 minutes into the flight when the first officer suffered a heart attack and became incapacitated. The captain declared PAN PAN and returned the aircraft to Adelaide for a safe landing on runway 23 about 70 minutes later. The flight was cancelled. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 25 hours before returning to service. https://avherald.com/h?article=505ff721&opt=0 Accident: Edelweiss A343 at Phuket on Mar 2nd 2023, dropped slat panel An Edelweiss Airbus A340-300, registration HB-JMD performing flight WK-50 )(dep Mar 1st) from Zurich (Switzerland) to Phuket (Thailand), performed a seemingly uneventful flight and concluded the flight with a safe landing on Phuket's runway 09 about 10.5 hours after departure from Zurich. A post flight inspection revealed however, that a right hand slat access panel had separated in flight causing damage to the barrel cowl and tail cone of the right hand engine. The engine cowl and tail cone needs to be replaced, a slat access panel is being sent to Phuket, too. According to information The Aviation Herald received the aircraft had just gone through an A-Check remaining on the ground for about 20 hours prior to departure. Preliminary investigation suggests screws were missing from the panel. The airline reported as result of damaged parts of the casing the aircraft could not operate the return flight WK-51. 307 passengers were inconvenienced in Phuket. A replacement aircraft is going to position to Phuket in the evening of Mar 4th and bring the passengers to Zurich on Sunday (Mar 5th). https://avherald.com/h?article=505f541d&opt=0 Incident: Atlas B744 near Charleston on Mar 2nd 2023, equipment cooling and hydraulic failure An Atlas Air Boeing 747-400 freighter on behalf of Fedex Federal Express, registration N477MC performing flight FX-251 from Memphis,TN (USA) to San Juan (Puerto Rico) with 5 crew, was enroute at FL330 over the Atlantic Ocean about 260nm southeast of Charleston,SC (USA) when the crew decided to turn around and divert to Charleston reporting an equipment cooling failure. Later on final approach the crew declared emergency reporting the #1 hydraulic system was out. The aircraft landed safely on runway 33 about 50 minutes after the decision to turn around and was towed off the runway. The aircraft remained on the ground for about 19 hours, then continued the flight to San Juan as flight FX-251D. https://avherald.com/h?article=505e8564&opt=0 Passenger of Business Jet Is Killed in ‘Severe Turbulence’ Officials said that the passenger, whom they have not identified, sustained fatal injuries during the flight, which made an emergency landing in Windsor Locks, Conn. A passenger of a business jet was killed when the plane, which was traveling from Keene, N.H., to Leesburg, Va., encountered “severe turbulence” on Friday, officials said. The aircraft, a Bombardier Challenger 300, was carrying two crew members and three passengers and was forced to land in Windsor Locks, a town about 14 miles north of Hartford, Conn., the National Transportation Safety Board said in a statement. Officials have not identified the passenger who died. That person had been taken from the airport to a nearby hospital, the Connecticut State Police said. The N.T.S.B. said that investigators were interviewing the crew, operator and passengers and had removed the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorders from the plane, which had been secured at the Bradley International Airport in Windsor Locks. Sarah Sulick, a spokeswoman for the transportation agency, said that it could not release further information about the nature of the turbulence, the passenger who was killed or any related injuries, as the investigation remained ongoing. The death follows a similar incident last week in which seven passengers of a Lufthansa flight traveling from Texas to Frankfurt were hospitalized with injuries after their plane encountered extreme turbulence. In December, 36 people were injured during turbulence on a Hawaiian Airlines flight from Phoenix to Honolulu. Though accidents on aircraft carrying passengers or cargo are uncommon, turbulence accounted for more than a third of such aircraft accidents from 2009 to 2018, according to a report from the N.T.S.B. Most of those accidents resulted in one or more serious injuries but no aircraft damage, the agency said in the report. There have been 146 passengers and crew seriously injured by turbulence from 2009 to 2021, according to data from the Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/05/us/turbulence-passenger-death.html Passenger Caught Smoking Mid-Air Inside Air India Aircraft Lavatory The passenger told authorities that he was a chain smoker. In another incident of a passenger causing inconvenience midflight, a person was found smoking inside the toilet of a Delhi-bound Air India plane. Despite all the warnings given by flight attendants and signs displayed inside lavatories, some passengers still manage to light a cigarette only to get caught and be handed over to authorities. Lighting up in the lavatory Disruptive passenger behavior in Indian airlines continues, with the latest example involving a person trying his luck by sneaking inside an aircraft lavatory and lighting a cigarette. According to a Times Now report, the incident occurred on March 4th on an Air India flight. The aircraft, an Airbus A321, was performing flight AI 763, a daily scheduled service between Kolkata and New Delhi. Investigation revealed that the passenger in question went inside the aircraft toilet with a cigarette and matchstick. Soon, the smell of the smoke spread out from the lavatory, setting off an alarm and alerting the crew to the situation. The air traffic control in Delhi was informed of the incident, and the passenger was handed over to the police after landing. He informed the authorities that he was a chain smoker. Not the first time The latest incident comes less than two months after a 62-year-old man was found smoking inside the lavatory of a SpiceJet plane. He, too, was handed over to the police and later let off on bail. But such incidents aren’t unique to India. In December 2022, a video on Twitter showed a passenger lighting a cigarette on an American Airlines flight. The cabin crew responded appropriately by extinguishing the cigarette, with the airline praising the action of its employees by stating, “Smoking and the use of e-cigarettes are prohibited by law and not allowed on any American Airlines flight. We thank our team member for their swift action in addressing the issue.” In 2019, an Alaska Airlines flight from San Francisco to Philadelphia had to divert to Chicago after a passenger attempted to smoke in-flight. When the flight attendant instructed him to extinguish it, the passenger reportedly became angry and attempted to light it again. Finally, he had to be escorted off the aircraft by police upon landing. While it seems unthinkable for anyone to smoke openly in an aircraft today, back in the day, it wasn’t uncommon to see aircraft cabins filled with secondhand smoke when it was still legal to smoke midflight. Get the latest aviation news straight to your inbox: Sign up for our newsletters today. The effort to ban smoking was gradual, and a critical landmark decision came in 1990 when smoking was banned on US domestic flights of less than six hours. Gradually, over the next few years, smoking was prohibited internationally to reach the point where we are today. https://simpleflying.com/passenger-caught-smoking-air-india/ TSA detects a cat inside a carry-on bag at the Norfolk Airport The folks running TSA security checkpoints at airports have some real humdingers to tell about the things they uncover. Soiled money. Inert grenades. Drugs inside scrunchies. But cats? Live cats? Tucked inside carry-ons? It’s happened before, and now it’s happened again. On Friday morning at Norfolk International Airport in Virginia, a feline was discovered inside a passenger’s carry-on bag during a security screening. The Transportation Security Administration released an X-ray photo of the poor pet cat in its official Twitter feed. Just when you thought it was safe to bring your pet cat on a trip. . . A traveler left their pet cat in its travel carrying case at a @TSA checkpoint this morning at @NorfolkAirport. Attention pet owners: Please do not send your pet through the X-ray unit. How to properly board your small pet How did all of this even come to happen? “This was a case where the passenger was traveling with their pet,” LIsa Farbstein, a spokesperson for the TSA, told CNN Travel by email on Friday afternoon. “They knew the pet was in a carry-on bag, because this was a pet travel case/container. “It appears that the individual either did not know to remove the pet from the carry-on travel case before going through the checkpoint, or forgot to do so,” she said. “When that happens, they have to start all over again, meaning that the passenger and the cat have to start over at the checkpoint. Longing for the 'golden age' of air travel? Be careful what you wish for “The passenger needs to remove the pet from a carry case and carry it through the walk-through metal detector or walk the pet through the metal detector on a leash. This is typical of how people travel with small dogs. In the case of a cat, if there is no leash, we strongly recommend that the passenger requests screening in a private screening room.” She said the reason is because “cats tend to be more skittish than dogs and might wiggle, scratch, bite and jump down and try to run away.” This news release from the TSA this past Christmas has some tips, and you can find out additional guidelines from the Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/tsa-cat-carryon-baggage-norfolk-airport/index.html NTSB: no CVR data for Southwest-FedEx near miss in Austin NTSB provided more details into the FedEx-Southwest near-miss at Austin in its preliminary report The United States (US) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has published the preliminary report about the near-miss incident at Austin Bergstrom International Airport (AUS), when a FedEx Boeing 767F freighter almost landed atop a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700. On February 4, 2023, a FedEx Boeing 767F, registered as N297FE and operating flight FDX 1432, was coming into land at AUS. Meanwhile, Southwest Airlines’ Boeing 737-700, registered as N7827A, was on its take-off roll on flight SWA 708. According to the NTSB’s report, the “Austin Airport Air Traffic Control Tower (AUS ATCT) Air Traffic Manager (ATM) stated at the time of the incident, there was an extremely low traffic volume and complexity at AUS”. Furthermore, “weather at the time of the incident was low instrument flight rules”, with calm winds, visibility at a quarter of a mile (400 meters), freezing fog, vertical visibility of 200 feet (60 meters), and temperature of -1°C (33.8°F). Cathay Pacific In Article banner March 2023 At about 6:34 AM local time (UTC +6), the FedEx 767 pilots established contact with AUS’ ATC, which cleared the wide-body jet to conduct a CAT III instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 18L. The pilots acknowledged this information. Then, at 6:38 AM local time (UTC +6), the Southwest Airlines’ First Officer checked in with the controller working at AUS, stating that they were holding short of the same runway where the FedEx freighter was cleared to land and were ready to take off. The ATC did indicate that the Boeing 767F was on a three-mile final approach and issued them takeoff clearance, and the FO correctly read back the information provided. The Southwest Airlines 737 proceeded to taxi onto the runway, lined up with the runway centerline, and came to a complete stop to begin takeoff procedures. At this point, the first officer became the pilot flying (PF), as the captain handed over the controls to him. The first officer then advanced the power, checked the engines, and released the brakes to begin the takeoff roll. FedEx and Southwest separated by 1,000 feet It seems that the FedEx pilots saw the Southwest Airlines narrow-body jet on the runway and requested ATC to reaffirm that they were cleared for a landing on runway 18L. The controller working at AUS affirmed that the Boeing 767 was cleared to land, advising of the traffic ahead of them, namely the Southwest Airlines aircraft. But at 6:40 AM local time (UTC +6), with FedEx on an approximately 0.7-mile (1.1 km) final approach, ATC asked whether the low-cost carrier’s aircraft was on its takeoff roll, with the 737’s pilots affirming that they were. “According to the captain of FDX1432, he noted that at an altitude of about 150 feet (45.7 m), the FO called go-around after visually seeing SWA708 at approximately 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet (304.8 to 457.2 m) from the approach end of the runway,” the NTSB’s report continued. Shortly after, the FedEx crew called “Southwest abort” and subsequently stated on the radio frequency that “FedEx is on the go”. “According to the SWA708 pilot narratives, the captain noted that somewhere between the speeds of 80 KIAS [Knots-indicated air speed – ed. note] and V1, he and the first officer heard FedEx call for a go-around,” the board’s preliminary inquiry stated. Once the NTSB reviewed the preliminary Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data, the agency concluded that as FedEx’s Boeing 767 was at the departure end of the runway climbing out of 1,900 ft (579.1 m), ATC instructed the freighter’s crew to maintain 3,000 ft (914.4 m) of altitude. At the same time, as the Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 began to turn right, the narrow-body aircraft was 1,000 ft (304.8 m) lower than the cargo aircraft above it. “The AUS ATCT ATM reported an overflight appeared to have occurred; however, the closest proximity has not yet been determined. SWA708 continued their flight plan route to Cancún, and FDX1432 executed a go-around and returned for landing without incident on runway 18L,” stated the NTSB’s report. In a separate statement in February 2023, the NTSB’s chairwoman Jennifer Homendy indicated that the pair of aircraft could have been separated by an altitude of fewer than 100 ft (30.5 m). The NTSB reiterated its desire to have longer data recordings of the CVR NTSB calls for cockpit video recorders and longer CVR data To conduct its investigation, the NTSB called upon various parties, from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FedEx, Southwest Airlines and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) to the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Southwest Airlines Pilots Association (SWAPA), Boeing and Honeywell Aerospace. Furthermore, the NTSB formed groups to examine the relevant operations, human performance, ATC, meteorology, and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The FAA provided the board with the ADS-B data and audio recordings from the day, as well as the digital FDRs and traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) computers. However, the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) data had been overwritten, as they only save data for two hours. Southwest Airlines and FedEx pilots spoke to the NTSB on the week starting February 13, 2023, while the Boeing 737’s TCAS unit’s information was downloaded three days later and is currently being analyzed. No injuries were reported to the three crew members of the FedEx Boeing 767 or the 123 passengers and five crew members of the Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-700. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/ntsb-no-cvr-data-for-southwest-fedex-near-miss-in-austin ‘Mumbai airport’s main runway is still unsafe,' says Mangala Narasimhan former Aviation Safety Officer Mangala Narasimhan, who was an air traffic controller and ASO of Mumbai airport, noticed several air safety violations. When she highlighted the same, it was in vain. She was later sacked by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) as well but her fight for flight safety continues. Mangala Narasimhan (54) was an air traffic controller (ATC) and Aviation Safety Officer posted at Mumbai airport when she noticed several air safety violations. Since the lives of thousands of passengers were at stake, she took up these issues with her higher ups, but in vain. Among other things, gross violation of height restriction rules by buildings coming in the way of the take-off and landing funnels of the airport was particularly worrying her. When a PIL was filed by a lawyer at Bombay High Court, she was made a respondent, in which capacity she placed all the facts before the judges. She was rewarded by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) by being sacked. In an interview, Mangala spoke to S Balakrishnan on her fight for flight safety. Excerpts: What prompted you to start the fight for flight safety? A childhood incident was responsible for it. I was only 17 years old studying in Neyveli in Tamil Nadu. My elder brother, an NDA graduate whom I hero worshipped, was an air force navigator on AN32 transport aircraft. Once when I returned home from school, I found him crying like a child on our mother's lap. He was sad that some of his colleagues were killed in an accident at Ludhiana. It was a nine aircraft formation and he was in aircraft number 3. Aircraft number 6 and 7 collided during the final approach of landing. The year was 1983-1984. That scene at my home left a deep impression on me. I realised how important flight safety was. I subsequently cleared the exams to become an ATC; a job that I regarded as a mission aimed at flight safety. Many of the air accidents could have been avoided if necessary precautions had been taken. My repeated warnings from 2012 onwards about latent dangerous conditions at Mumbai airport’s main Runway 09/27 and Calicut airport were ignored by the authorities. The same latent dangerous conditions at Calicut airport’s runway resulted in an accident on August 7, 2020, in which 19 innocent passengers and the two pilots were killed. The accident was blamed on pilot error. The pilots are dead and cannot defend themselves. But the fact is that the authorities ignored my warnings and that was the reason for the loss of lives. Mumbai airport's main runway 09 / 27 is still unsafe. You have been accused of violating the organisational chain of command in AAI. Please comment. Air safety does not need any celebratory protocol. If your immediate superior does not respond to your warnings, then you are at liberty to approach the higher ups. The safety of lakhs of passengers is at stake. It should not be compromised on bureaucratic red tape. I only functioned like a conscientious ATC official. What specific air safety issues did you take up? With respect to Mumbai, air safety violations are in four categories: unsafe runway conditions, violations of rules framed by international civil aviation safety organisation, AAI and the DGCA, tall buildings within a 20-km radius of the airport and non-reporting of air safety incidents to me by Mumbai ATC. More than 85% of accidents take place during take off or landing when the reaction time for the pilot is very less. How many buildings are violating air safety norms in Mumbai? An AAI / MIAL Obstacle survey in 2010-11 revealed 439 obstacles on the take-off and landing paths alone. In between buildings were not considered. Apparently, the 2020 survey revealed 1,140 obstacles in the narrow take off and landing funnels. In 2014 a PIL was filed by a lawyer in Bombay High Court on this issue and in 2018 I was permitted to file a fresh petition. The matter is still pending. Is it true that you were sacked by the AAI? The HC judgment permitting me to file a petition was passed on April 6, 2018, and 10 days after that I was dismissed by the AAI. I have challenged my illegal dismissal. I am certain I will win because my fight is for air safety. When a passenger dies in a crash, his entire family suffers. Powerful builders tried to win me over and even told me that my objections would be overruled by the powers that be. I am certain that the HC will give weightage to the safety of passengers and not to the interests of builders and those who protect them. https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/mumbai-airports-main-runway-is-still-unsafe-says-mangala-narasimhan-former-aviation-safety-officer Curt Lewis