Flight Safety Information - April 20, 2023 No. 076 In This Issue : Incident: VivaAeroBus A320 at Puerto Vallarta on Apr 19th 2023, engine surge : Incident: Gol B738 near Natal on Apr 12th 2023, engine shut down in flight : Incident: Gol B738 at Uberlandia on Apr 17th 2023, bird strike : Terrifying moment passengers watch in horror as their jet engine explodes in mid-air : Unlike other airlines, FAA won’t let Horizon fly without anti-collision system : Southwest Airlines Flight Diverts After Passenger Goes On Anti-Baby Rant : Dutch investigators recommend changes to Boeing 747 engines following failure : All Chinese operators of the 737 MAX have resumed flying the aircraft : Airlines, Pilots Disagree on Pilot Shortage : Aviation Workforce: Supply of Airline Pilots and Aircraft Mechanics : US airlines about to be hit with ‘tsunami’ of pilot retirements : Boeing 747 Hub: Air China Brings The Jumbo Jet Back To Frankfurt Incident: VivaAeroBus A320 at Puerto Vallarta on Apr 19th 2023, engine surge A VivaAeroBus Airbus A320-200, registration XA-VAV performing flight VB-3235 from Puerto Vallarta to Guadalajara (Mexico), was climbing out of Puerto Vallarta's runway 22 when the crew stopped the climb at 6000 feet after the right hand engine (V2527) emitted a huge bang, streaks of flames and smoke. The aircraft returned to Puerto Vallarta for a safe landing on runway 22 about 30 minutes after departure. The aircraft is still on the ground about 12 hours after landing back. https://avherald.com/h?article=50811994&opt=0 Incident: Gol B738 near Natal on Apr 12th 2023, engine shut down in flight A Gol Transportes Aereos Boeing 737-800, registration PR-GGK performing positioning flight G3-9675 from Belo Horizonte,MG (Brazil) to Sal (Cape Verde) with 4 crew, was enroute at FL400 over the Atlantic Ocean about 170nm northnortheast of Natal,RN (Brazil) when the crew received indications of low oil quantity and subsequently low oil pressure for the left hand engine (CFM56). The crew worked the related checklists, shut the engine down and diverted to Natal for a safe landing on runway 12 about 35 minutes later. The aircraft remained on the ground in Natal for 2 days 22.5 hours, then continued the positioning flight to Sal. https://avherald.com/h?article=50809305&opt=0 Incident: Gol B738 at Uberlandia on Apr 17th 2023, bird strike A Gol Transportes Aereos Boeing 737-800, registration PR-GUF performing flight G3-1687 from Uberlandia,MG to Sao Paulo Congonhas,SP (Brazil) with 160 passengers and 6 crew, was climbing out of Uberlandia's runway 04 when the crew reported the right hand engine (CFM56) had ingested a bird and suffered severe vibrations. The crew reduced the thrust on the engine which returned the engine to normal parameters, the crew therefore did not shut the engine down. The aircraft stopped the climb at 6000 feet and returned to Uberlandia for a safe landing on runway 04 about 25 minutes after departure. Brazil's CENIPA reported the aircraft sustained minor damage. The aircraft is still on the ground in Uberlandia about 49 hours after landing back. https://avherald.com/h?article=5080919e&opt=0 Terrifying moment passengers watch in horror as their jet engine explodes in mid-air The passengers - who were travelling inside Mexico - were aboard a twin-engine Airbus A320 when they watched in horror as the jet's engine exploded while they were flying over the sea yesterday This is the terrifying moment horrified passengers on a budget airline saw their jet engine explode in mid-air. The passengers had just taken off on an internal flight in Mexico on a twin-engined Airbus A320 when the sky-high drama unfolded on Wednesday. Chilling footage - shot through a window by a passenger on the Viva Aerobus flight from Puerto Vallarta and Guadalajara - shows the plane flying over sea. The plane's starboard engine suddenly explodes, sending a sheet of flame backwards towards the tail. The plane is rocked by the blast as it shudders in mid-air before the footage ends. The footage - uploaded onto social media - shows the plane's identity designation XA-VAV on the right wing. Pilots made an emergency landing at Puerto Vallarta airport where passengers were put on a replacement flight, according to local media. Ryanair passengers 'scream and panic' as parked plane 'rolls forward' on runway The airline - which is owned by a Mexican bus company - said the drama was dealt with by their pilots. It added: "According to the protocols established for this type of situation and as a precautionary measure, with the safety of all passengers as a priority, the crew proceeded to return the aircraft to the Puerto Vallarta International Airport and landed successfully at 4:29 p.m., without any mishap." It went on: "After landing, the passengers were disembarked in a timely manner and the aircraft was taken in for inspection and maintenance. "The aircraft with registration XA-VXC was designated to cover the flight and get users to their destination as soon as possible. "We regret the inconvenience that this circumstance may have caused and we reaffirm our commitment to safety on each of the flights, the company's number one priority." The airline is owned by a Mexican bus company Yesterday, it emerged that passengers had been left panicking after their Ryanair plane "rolled forward" shortly after coming to a stop after landing. The Ryanair flight had just opened its doors when their aircraft is said to have moved forward. The chocks were removed and before a tug could be attached, it moved forward “less than one metre”. A passenger aboard the flight to Majorca from Bristol said the slight movement caused “panic” and caused a number of people to scream. A spokesman for Bristol Airport confirmed the busy aircraft rolled less than one metre after chocks were removed before a tug had been attached. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/terrifying-moment-passengers-watch-horror-29761322 Unlike other airlines, FAA won’t let Horizon fly without anti-collision system A lone safety inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration who oversees flight operations at Horizon Air has stuck his neck out to insist that the airline’s jets cannot take off with passengers aboard if a critical safety system is inoperative. Internal FAA memos, copies of which were obtained by The Seattle Times, show the matter has been the subject of debate and contention within the safety agency. Especially in light of the recent spate of aviation near misses in the U.S. aviation system, some within the FAA support the inspector’s contention that there’s unacceptable risk in a longstanding agency policy that allows exceptions so that jets can take off with the system not working. Yet negative feedback from major airlines seems to have swayed the agency to reverse an initial ruling that could have applied the inspector’s stance to other carriers. The system in question is one on commercial airliners and other smaller planes called the Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System, or TCAS. It shows the pilots air traffic in their vicinity in a display on the instrument panel. More urgently, if an approaching airplane appears on a collision course, it alerts the pilots verbally and tells them what action they must take to avoid it. FAA policy has long allowed airlines up to three days’ leeway during which they can continue to fly a plane with an inoperative system. But Clint Laurie, the FAA’s principal operations inspector at Horizon, supported by his team that oversees the airline, is enforcing a strict interpretation of the TCAS regulation. If TCAS isn’t working on one of Horizon’s Embraer E175 jets, the plane is not permitted to fly passengers. Period. In early February, according to a document viewed by The Seattle Times, Horizon sent a memo to flight maintenance crews informing them of this. The jets can fly to another base for repair, but not with passengers aboard. This notice was “effective immediately.” That makes the Seattle-based regional carrier unique among U.S. airlines. Even Alaska Airlines, the major carrier that Horizon shares a livery with as part of the Alaska Air Group, doesn’t follow that practice. Like all other U.S. airlines except for Horizon, Alaska Airlines takes advantage of the policy that allows scheduled flights to continue without TCAS during the three-day period. The FAA, in an emailed statement, said that “FAA policy for decades has allowed airlines, in limited circumstances and for a short period of time, to operate an aircraft without a functioning TCAS system or components of the system.” Alaska Airlines in a statement said “Alaska and Horizon will continue to follow FAA guidance” and added that “Alaska Airlines TCAS policy and procedure is aligned with all other airlines.” An Alaska Airlines veteran captain, who asked not to be named because he spoke without company authorization, said providing the three days’ relief is “just the practical thing to do.” Otherwise, passengers could potentially be left stranded if a replacement airplane isn’t immediately available. Yet recent near misses and air traffic control lapses in the U.S. have convinced one senior FAA safety engineer — who also asked for anonymity because he spoke without agency authorization — that giving airlines this leeway “is a policy that should not exist.” The engineer said he felt impelled to speak out and provide the internal documents because “the safety of the public outweighs the inconvenience to the airlines to make money.” “There have been numerous cases of near midair collisions that were averted due to TCAS warning the flight crews of the approaching aircraft,” he wrote in an email. “In these times of increased hazards, resulting from aircraft collision (air or ground), this is not the time for the agency to be ambiguous.” At least at Horizon, the ambiguity is gone: No TCAS, no flight. Laurie declined to speak about his position, referring a reporter to FAA communications staff. The FAA communications department turned down interview requests and provided only emailed statements that failed to address direct questions. But recent internal FAA documents obtained by The Seattle Times reveal the agency vacillating on the TCAS issue. In October, Laurie wrote to the FAA’s Air Transportation Division expressing concern about the risks from airlines not fully complying with the TCAS regulation and asked for clarification on its enforcement. In a Dec. 1 memo, the FAA backed his interpretation. The memo rules that “TCAS must be installed and operated at all times.” It states the FAA had initiated publication of a notice that “reinforces the statutory and regulatory requirements” and would give airlines 90 days to revise any policies that ease the TCAS requirement contrary to the regulation. That spurred the February memo to Horizon flight crews telling them the three-day relief options were “no longer usable.” But on Feb. 24, the FAA issued another memo declaring the December memo “rescinded effective immediately.” “Flight Standard Service received additional information regarding this topic,” the February memo states. “As a result, internal deliberations are ongoing.” According to the FAA safety engineer with knowledge of what happened, this reversal came after airlines, including Alaska, contacted the FAA opposing Laurie’s position. How TCAS works TCAS uses the same radar transponders installed on aircraft that allow ground-based air traffic control to know the location and trajectory of aircraft in the airspace. On big airliners, TCAS provides the flight crew with “traffic advisories” to enhance their awareness of what aircraft are around them. Pilots glance at the TCAS display routinely to know what is in the air nearby. More urgently, if the trajectories suggest two aircraft are headed too close to one another, the system will announce an escape maneuver to avoid collision, which pilots are required to act upon immediately. For example, the system might tell the crew to “descend” or “level off” or “climb” as appropriate. On Feb. 22, the system annunciated an avoidance maneuver when two regional jets came too close together at a Burbank, Calif., airport. A Mesa Airlines CRJ-900 operating for American Eagle from Phoenix was forced to go around as it came in to land when the pilot spotted a SkyWest Embraer E175 taking off from the same runway. The SkyWest plane continued its takeoff and the two aircraft were briefly in proximity. In the recorded air traffic control exchange, the controller asks the SkyWest pilot if he can see the Mesa jet. The pilot responds “negative,” quickly adding that he has received a verbal TCAS instruction to avoid collision and is following it. The two aircraft separated safely. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident. The system is neither perfect nor is it the only protection against collisions. The veteran Alaska Airlines captain said TCAS is part of a “belt-and-suspenders” approach to keeping air traffic safe. He said that air traffic controllers on the ground who direct traffic through radio communication with the pilots bear the primary responsibility for separating aircraft. Yet recent near misses have shown air traffic controllers make mistakes. In February, a FedEx 767 cargo jet came within a few hundred feet of landing on top of a Southwest Airlines 737 passenger plane taking off in Austin, Texas. The FedEx pilot saw the 737 on the runway and requested confirmation that the 767 was cleared to land. Not realizing the 737 had delayed beginning its takeoff roll and was still in the way, the controller on the ground gave the confirmation. The FedEx crew pulled out and did a go-around at the last minute as the 737 rose into its path. The NTSB is investigating the incident and there’s no indication that TCAS played a role in narrowly avoiding a catastrophe. The TCAS computers were removed from both airplanes and sent to their respective manufacturers for a download of data. For now, Horizon is keeping to Laurie’s strict interpretation of the TCAS regulation while all other U.S. airlines are able to take the three-day exception. The airlines have received no update from the FAA since the late February memo cited ongoing “internal deliberations.” https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/unlike-other-airlines-faa-wont-let-horizon-fly-without-anti-collision-system/ Southwest Airlines Flight Diverts After Passenger Goes On Anti-Baby Rant A baby was crying on board a Southwest Airlines flight to Orlando, and a passenger on board absolutely lost it. He spent three minutes on a rant about how couldn’t stand the sound of the baby, and things got so bad the flight had to divert. The video is definitely not safe for work because the man’s language gets fairly extreme. But if you’re not at work, not around young children, and just have to see this man lose it then you’ll also see a flight attendant trying to come him down. But when it’s pointed out that he’s telling, he simply responds “so is the baby!” The flight attendant pointed out that the man was.. an adult, and more could be expected of him. And another passenger noted that, by screaming, he was annoying the rest of the passengers. Why was that ok if the baby’s crying wasn’t? I’ve always judged situations with crying babies on the basis of how the parents are handling it. If they’re uncomfortable, are the parents trying to address their needs? Are they visibly embarrassed? Then I’m sympathetic. I’ve also seen parents completely tune it out and ignore the crying children, just letting it rip. Regardless, an f-bomb laden rant at your cabin crew will at best wind up getting you removed from the aircraft (as it did here) and could wind up with charges. Southwest Airlines, meanwhile, commended their flight crew “for their professionalism” and apologized “to the other customers onboard.” Do parents with crying babies have just as much right to be on the plane as you do? https://viewfromthewing.com/southwest-airlines-flight-diverts-after-passenger-goes-on-anti-baby-rant/ Dutch investigators recommend changes to Boeing 747 engines following failure Dutch investigators issued their final report of the Boeing 747-400BCF contained engine failure, depicting the reason why engine parts fell down on a Dutch village Maastricht Aachen Airport The Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (Dutch Safety Board, OVV) has issued several recommendations in its final accident report into a contained engine failure on a converted Boeing 747-400 freighter (B747-400BCF) in which engine parts dropped on a village in the Netherlands. The incident took place on February 20, 2021, when the Boeing 747-400BCF, registered as VQ-BWT, suffered a contained engine failure shortly after its departure from Maastricht Aachen Airport (MST) to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK). The aircraft, operated by Longtail Aviation, suffered damage to engine 1 (outer wing left-hand side engine). While none of the crew onboard the 747 were not hurt, two people on the ground suffered injuries. Further damage was recorded to cars and houses in the village of Meerssen located approximately two kilometers (1.2 miles) south of runway 21 at MST. APS In Article March 2023 Following the contained engine failure, the aircraft diverted to Liege Airport (LGG) in Belgium, where the Boeing 747-400F landed without further incident. The freighter was powered by four Pratt & Whitney PW4000 family turbofan engines that accumulated 73,995 flight hours (FH) and 9,964 flight cycles (FC) since they entered service in January 1993. Since their last overhaul in 2010, the four turbofans had 11,516 FHs and 1,998 FCs at the time of the incident. Contained engine failure of the Boeing 747-400BCF Throughout its investigation, the OVV focused on finding the cause of the contained engine failure and whether the risks to the people on the ground had been properly managed. According to the Dutch investigators, the risks were looked into because the OVV “received e-mail messages and letters from residents who expressed their safety concerns and that injuries to residents and damage to property had occurred as a result of this occurrence”. The final report depicted that apart from the auxiliary power unit (APU) being unserviceable due to the inlet door being stuck in a partially open position, resulting in the crew compensating for the additional drag during the takeoff performance calculation, the aircraft was in normal operating condition. The operator’s Minimal Equipment List (MEL) allowed the Boeing 747-400BCF to be operated in such a condition. The OVV noted in its final report that as the aircraft began to taxi to runway 21, “the flight crew started the engines; the start up times were within limits and all engine indications were normal”. Investigators added that the taxi time “provided sufficient time for the engines to comply with the minimum warm-up time, as recommended by the engine manufacturer”. While the take-off roll was uneventful, at an altitude of 1,150 feet (350 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL), the pilots of the aircraft heard a banging noise and the 747 began to roll and yaw slightly to the left. Furthermore, the exhaust gas temperature of engine no 1 was above the maximum temperature, with the power plant failing and losing thrust shortly after. The first officer, who was pilot flying (PF), corrected for the asymmetric trust and performed the first item of the “engine limit or surge or stall” procedure, investigators noted, reducing the number 1 engine’s thrust to flight idle. At the same time, “the runway controller informed the flight crew that flames were observed from the number 1 engine”. The captain, who was pilot monitoring (PM) declared an emergency, telling Air Traffic Control (ATC) that they were shutting down the engine. Even though there was no engine fire indication in the cockpit, the report claimed that “the crew decided to treat the event as an engine fire and performed the memory items for the ‘engine fire’ procedure”. Subsequently, the pilots switched “the number 1 fuel control switch to cutoff, pulled the engine 1 fire switch and rotated it to its stop to exert a fire suppressing agent into the engine”, isolating the engine from the hydraulic system and cutting off the flow of fuel into the now-failed turbofan. Since the aircraft was above its maximum landing weight, the flight crew and ATC coordinated to dump fuel and reduce weight. At this point, the captain became the PF, while the first officer was now the PM. Less than an hour after taking off from MST, the crew dumped over three tons of fuel and landed uneventfully at LGG. Notably, the report found that “the fire brigade reported to the flight crew that there were no signs of fire from engine number 1, nor that there was external damage visible”. Prior to landing, ATC informed the flight crew that there were already reports about debris on the ground from the engine, which is why the pilots “took into consideration that possible damage to the wing or flaps might have happened”, the report added. Damage to the high pressure and low-pressure turbines of the P&W PW4000 Following a post-landing inspection, the OVV pointed out there was “significant damage was visible to the aft stages of the low pressure turbine when looking forward into the tail pipe”. Further inspections showed that the number 1 engine “encountered a contained failure and sustained internal damage of among others the high pressure turbine and low pressure turbine”. No other parts of the aircraft were harmed during the event. The Dutch investigators found “that the second stage blade outer air seal of the high pressure turbine (HPT), as well as the HPT itself had deteriorated”, resulting in the outer transition ducts being exposed to elevated temperatures. As a result, these two factors contributed to the slow deformation of the ducts. “The outer transition duct panels distorted, the attachment hooks deformed and backed away from the case, which led to liberation of one panel and one being fractured,” the OVV continued. The panels damaged the turbine blades, fragments of which left the engine via the exhaust pipe and rained down on the Dutch village. The report noted: “The investigation ruled out that runway foreign object debris or a bird strike or drone strike had led to the engine failure. The meteorological conditions played no part in this failure either.” Pratt & Whitney, the manufacturer of the PW4000 engine, was aware that such a failure could occur, and issued two Service Bulletins (SB) in 1993. Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued two airworthiness directives (AD) to the power plant. The OVV highlighted that while the engine had the SB 74-488 incorporated, SB 72-462, which is meant to add additional HPT cooling features, did not. While one AD was not applicable due to the incorporation of SB 72-488, the other AD, requiring operators to inspect LPT vanes, had not been incorporated because the engine’s last shop visit had been in 2009, before the publishing date of the directive. “According to Pratt & Whitney’s analytical modelling, the outer transition ducts failure would not have occurred if SB 72-462 had been incorporated. “This claim seems credible, as the investigation did not find similar failure modes with engines that had been modified with the additional cooling features,” the Dutch investigators stated. “Despite the fact that the engine was equipped with the redesigned outer transition ducts, the temperature could rise to a level that it caused damage over a long period of time, which led to liberation of outer transition duct panels and finally failure of the engine, whereas the lacking additional cooling features were supposed to prevent this from happening,” the OVV added. However, while the SB was published in 1993, it was not incorporated during the engine’s visit to the shop in 1999 and 2009, when the engine was disassembled. Longtail Aviation was also not the operator of the aircraft at the time, rather it was Singapore Airlines (operated between 1991 and 2004), and Martinair, a subsidiary of KLM (between 2007 and 2010). As a result, investigators found that “the content of the service bulletin was not considered an urgent safety issue” and operation of the engine is allowed without the incorporation of SB 72-462. Reconsider whether SB should be a mandatory AD The Dutch investigators issued three recommendations to various parties. First, the OVV recommended that Longtail Aviation “keep the record keeping of the (non-)implementation of service bulletins for leased engines of your fleet of commercial air transport aeroplanes complete and accessible”. Second, the Dutch investigators advised the FAA to reconsider whether SB 72-462 should be made mandatory through an AD. And finally, the institution recommended that the Dutch Minister of Infrastructure and Water Management “perform and publish an assessment for residential areas around Maastricht Aachen Airport of the risks of parts departing the aircraft, such as departing engine debris”. The report noted that while the failure caused no risk to the safe operation of the aircraft, the fragments that exited the engine “caused a hazard to persons and property on the ground”. “The engine failure showed that the hazard of departing engine parts is real, resulting in injured people and damaged property,” the OVV said, adding that “residents around airports are at least exposed to two types of risks: first, parts departing the aircraft, and second an accident with an aircraft”. At the time of the report, no study had been conducted to assess the residential areas around MST for the two risks. “Based on the results of such an assessment, an informed decision about the acceptability of these local risks should be made,” the OVV concluded. The OVV marked the event as a serious incident due to the “potential for an accident, as the departing engine debris that came down in a village could have seriously injured people, besides the injuries that had taken place”. https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/dutch-investigators-recommend-changes-to-boeing-747-engines-following-failure Helicopter Industry Group Urges FAA To Use Caution With 5G NPRM New federal rulemaking taking aim at potential 5G interference of helicopter radio altimeters should balance safety and operations, according to Helicopter Association The FAA's airworthiness directive is for all helicopters equipped with a radar altimeter due to the potential for 5G C-band interference. [Credit: Shutterstock] Any new rule targeting potential 5-G C-band transmission interference with radio altimeters in helicopters needs to balance safety with operational impact, according to Helicopter Association International (HAI). HAI’s comments come days after the FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the impact of 5G C-band transmissions on helicopters equipped with radio altimeters, which are also sometimes called radar altimeters. For years wireless communication companies have been pushing the need for 5G C-band transmissions to handle the increase in wireless communications. There has been concern that 5G transmissions can interfere with the operation of radio altimeters, a device on many aircraft that provides pilots with information about the proximity of the aircraft to the ground. Radio altimeters are critical in low-visibility situations. On April 12, the FAA released the NPRM on a proposed airworthiness directive designed to protect some 1,100 helicopters in the United States from 5G interference. According to John Shea, director of government affairs for HAI, the association is carefully reading the NPRM, and looking for a way that supports both safety and the mission of helicopters. “At HAI, we understand and appreciate the FAA’s responsibility to ensure safety of the national airspace system for all its users. We are committed to working with the FAA on maintaining aviation safety in a 5G environment,” Shea said. “It is important to recognize that the degree of dependence on a radar altimeter for safe helicopter operation can vary significantly based on the type of operation,” he added. “The FAA acknowledged this fact when establishing flight restrictions in their initial [airworthiness directive] AD. The recently published NPRM further acknowledges this by presenting operators with the choice to retrofit or to continue operating under the flight restrictions.” Shea added that HAI is in the process of reviewing the NPRM that would replace the 5G-related AD for rotorcraft, adding, “In the coming days, HAI will submit public comments on the NPRM in the federal register. At that time, we will also release a statement summarizing our positions.” According to Shea, the NPRM “establishes an interference tolerance threshold for radio altimeters on rotorcraft. Operators who retrofit their equipment to meet the threshold will not be subject to the flight restrictions in the AD, whereas those who do not retrofit will be subject to restrictions throughout the contiguous United States.” The challenge, says Shea, is that there needs to be a balancing act between safety and operational impact of regulatory action, as helicopters are essential support in critical industries such as law enforcement, construction, and national security. “Therefore, any revisions to the AD must be both effective and reasonable. Any undue financial or operational hardships imposed on the helicopter industry could have substantial downstream consequences for the vital industries and emergency response entities we serve.” Per the FAA, the AD is for all helicopters equipped with a radar altimeter due to the potential for 5G C-band interference. “This proposed AD would supersede a 2021 AD because the FAA determined additional limitations are needed due to the continued deployment of new 5G C-Band base stations.” the FAA states. “It requires revising the rotorcraft flight manual to prohibit certain operations that require radar altimeter data. The AD would require the rotorcraft flight manual revision on or before June 30, 2023.” As previously reported in FLYING, multiple airports have Notices to Air Missions (NOTAMs) warning pilots about the potential impact of 5G transmission in their vicinity. In January 2022, the wireless companies voluntarily reduced the power of the 5G towers near airports to help protect air traffic while the industry focused on developing protections against interference. The FAA noted that both AT&T and Verizon agreed to keep their voluntary mitigations in place until July 2023 to give the aviation industry an additional year to retrofit their airplanes with radio frequency filters. The airlines have until 2024 to make upgrades to comply with 5G per an FAA AD. The proposed AD requires passenger and cargo aircraft in the U.S. to be equipped with 5G C-Band tolerant altimeters by next February. https://www.flyingmag.com/helicopter-industry-group-urges-faa-to-use-caution-with-5g-nprm/ All Chinese operators of the 737 MAX have resumed flying the aircraft China was the last country to resume regular flights with the 737 MAX after nearly four years of grounding Speaking to investors on Tuesday, April 18, Boeing President and CEO David Calhoun commented on the manufacturer’s performance over the past year and recent developments. One of the subjects addressed by the executive was the return of regular flights of the 737 MAX with all airlines in China that acquired the model. “In fact, as of this month, all MAX operators in China have returned to flying their airplanes in service,” said Calhoun, revealing that 45 of the 95 737 MAX jets delivered in China are back in service after the long grounding period in as a result of two fatal accidents with the model, in 2018 and 2019. China was the last country to release the return of the 737 MAX, in December 2021. Despite the authorization, Chinese companies did not immediately resume operations with the jet, which actually started only from the beginning of this year. Therefore, while around the world the suspension of the model lasted 20 years and months, in the Chinese market the stoppage of the Boeing plane lasted for almost four years. No new orders Although they are flying their aircraft, Chinese airlines have not yet determined when they will return to receive new examples of the 737 MAX. Despite the lack of clarity, Boeing’s CEO expressed optimism to investors about the Chinese market for the company’s flagship product. “With regards to future deliveries, we’ve recently seen encouraging progress with the Civil Aviation Administration of China releasing the 737 Aircraft Evaluation Report, which is an important step in that process. Ultimately, our customers will determine the timing of when they are ready to take delivery of their airplanes, we’ll be there to support them,” said Calhoun. China is one of the main markets for the 737 MAX. In the country, Boeing’s single-aisle jet has so far been selected by 11 airlines and has also been ordered by the China Development Bank. In all, Chinese companies have orders for nearly 300 examples of the plane manufactured in the United States. Despite this, the recent diplomatic clashes between the US and Chinese governments have prevented the closing of new agreements. Airbus, for example, announced several orders in recent months, in addition to expanding investments in the country, where there is an assembly line for the A320neo family. https://www.airdatanews.com/all-chinese-operators-of-the-737-max-have-resumed-flying-the-aircraft/ Airlines, Pilots Disagree on Pilot Shortage Wednesday's testimony in the U.S. Congress reflected differences in opinion on the existence of a pilot shortage. The state of pilot supply came under scrutiny in the House Aviation Subcommittee on Wednesday as industry stakeholders who testified disagreed about whether a shortage exists and whether measures such as raising the mandatory retirement age for airlines would help. Regional Airline Association president and CEO Faye Malarkey Black in testimony called the situation “devastating” and said that despite soaring passenger demand, the shortage is decimating small community air service. She said the shortage has been growing for decades, with a chief issue stemming from the FAA’s slow action on advancing pilot training standards. “The impacts of the pilot shortage are real,” she said. “Currently, more than 500 regional aircraft are parked, and those aircraft remaining in service are underutilized. The impact has been felt by 308 airports or almost 72 percent of all U.S. airports.” Calling the situation particularly acute among airline captains, she said the fact that 50 percent of the pilot workforce would be forced to retire in the next 15 years will exacerbate the problem. “Thousands of willing, healthy, and skilled pilots who would like to continue working are being forced out of the profession at age 65, to the detriment of air service across the country,” said Black. Despite the increase in pilot certificates, there still are not enough qualified and interested people to hire, she added. Last year marked a record for new pilots qualified—9,491—but the number "fell far short of the 13,128 hired by just one subset of the airline industry last year,” she stressed. “It is vitally important that pilot production in 2022 be put in the proper context.” The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) released data in advance of Wednesday’s hearing showing that the FAA has certified 2,658 new airline pilots in just the first three months of this year and 63,932 since 2013, when stricter qualification rules took effect (the so-called 1,500-hour rule). The airlines filled about 40,000 positions at the same time. “Over the past 10 years, the United States has not only reduced airline passenger fatalities but also produced more than enough pilots to meet airline hiring demand,” said ALPA president Jason Ambrosi. “The groups that continue the flood of misinformation and misleading data are only interested in one thing: manufacturing a crisis to lower aviation safety standards and increase their bottom line.” ALPA blames the decision of the airlines to bump to smaller equipment, park aircraft, and furlough pilots during the pandemic for creating the current situation. When demand returned and airlines rehired pilots, they needed retraining, creating a backlog. Ambrosi told lawmakers he believed enough supply exists to satisfy demand and cautioned against raising the pilot age on the grounds that it would put the U.S. out of sync with international standards. Heather Krause, director of physical infrastructure for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), noted that the number of individuals qualified to become airline pilots increased between 2017 and 2022 and enrollments in training schools likewise increased. Forecasters project an increase in pilot supply, she testified, but “the extent to which projected supply would exceed or fall short of industry’s demand for pilots is unknown, given uncertainties surrounding future demand.” Hiring and wage data indicate a strong demand for pilots, and regional airlines in particular have faced difficulties meeting that demand. Airlines have increased pay and the FAA is taking steps to support workforce development, she noted, but it is unclear whether these steps will be enough. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2023-04-19/airlines-pilots-disagree-pilot-shortage Aviation Workforce: Supply of Airline Pilots and Aircraft Mechanics This testimony discusses our ongoing review of the workforce challenges facing commercial aviation and steps the industry is taking to address them. Increased demand for commercial airline travel heightens the need for pilots and mechanics. Although the number of pilots has grown in recent years, there may not be enough of them to meet the needs of airlines in the future. There also may not be enough mechanics to reduce a backlog in airplane repairs. To make aviation careers more attractive, airlines and maintenance facilities are offering higher pay to these workers. Airlines are also creating flight schools to train more pilots. In ongoing work, GAO determined that the current supply of pilots—as measured by the number of individuals qualified to be U.S. passenger airline pilots—grew from 2017 through 2022. Enrollments in U.S. pilot training schools also increased in recent years. Pilot supply may increase over the next two decades, according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pilot certification data and forecasts. However, the extent to which projected supply would exceed or fall short of industry's demand for pilots is unknown given uncertainties surrounding future demand. Publicly available data on hiring, employment, and wages indicate strong current demand for pilots. Meeting that demand has been particularly difficult for regional airlines—which generally serve smaller communities—and has, according to them, affected their operations. Note: Pilots age 65 and over are no longer eligible for employment with scheduled U.S. passenger airlines, but could work as pilots or instructors elsewhere. The number of people newly certificated by FAA to be aircraft mechanics grew from 2017 through 2022. Less is known about how many mechanics enter or exit the aviation industry each year or the demand for aircraft mechanics. However, aviation businesses GAO interviewed reported challenges maintaining sufficient numbers of mechanics. Aviation industry stakeholders have taken steps to address workforce supply challenges. Airlines and repair stations are increasing pay for pilots and mechanics. For example, several regional airlines raised pay substantially in 2022. FAA is also undertaking efforts to support industry workforce development, including awarding grants to attract young people to aviation careers. Why GAO Did This Study The aviation industry has raised questions about whether the demand for commercial airline pilots and aircraft mechanics may exceed supply in the future. Industry's demand for pilots and mechanics is driven by a number of factors. These factors include projected demand for air travel and the number of aircraft that airlines expect to use to fulfill that demand, as well as anticipated workforce attrition and retirements. This testimony highlights: (1) what is known about the current supply of and demand for commercial airline pilots and aircraft mechanics; (2) challenges related to aviation workforce supply, according to industry stakeholders; and (3) actions the aviation industry and FAA have taken to address those challenges. This statement is based on GAO's body of published work on aviation workforce issues, including a draft report currently with the Department of Transportation and FAA for comment. For the draft report, GAO examined industry and government data on airline pilot and aircraft mechanics, including professional certifications, student enrollments, and hiring, wage, and employment data. GAO also interviewed representatives from domestic passenger and regional airlines; repair stations; faculty from training schools; and aviation industry and labor groups. For more information, contact Heather Krause at (202) 512-2834 or krauseh@gao.gov. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106769 US airlines about to be hit with ‘tsunami’ of pilot retirements The US airline industry is about to be hit with a “tsunami of pilot retirements” that will further the nation’s pilot shortage, limiting flight availability for passengers and putting upward pressure on fares, an industry group told Congress Wednesday. “The pilot shortage has resulted in a collapse in air service,” Faye Malarkey Black, president and CEO of the Regional Airline Association, told a House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee hearing in prepared remarks. More than half of pilots working today hit the mandatory retirement age of 65 in the next 15 years and younger pilots are not making up for those aging out. The “severe and ongoing pilot shortage” is nationwide, Black noted: 42 states have less airline service now than before the pandemic, 136 airports have lost at least a quarter of their service, and airlines have completely cut off flights to 11 airports in smaller cities that connect to larger hubs. More than 500 planes belonging to regional airlines are sitting idle without enough pilots to fly them, and those that do fly are used as much as 40% less than in the past. Most airlines have yet to fully restore the service cuts they made during the pandemic, even in the face of record bookings at some carriers. That combination of limited capacity and strong demand is leading to fares that are significantly above pre-pandemic levels. Black’s group represents the regional carriers which provide feeder service for the larger airlines such as American, United (UAL)and Delta (DAL). Those major airlines are also facing shortages of pilots, but they’ve been hiring pilots away from the regional carriers, causing an even worse problem for passengers and cities which depend on them. The large airlines hired more than 13,000 pilots in 2022, according to Black, nearly all from the smaller carriers that the RAA represents. More pilots earned licenses last year than ever before, but those 9,500 new entrants were not enough to keep pace with demand. Black said the cost of training for a new pilot can be $80,000, with total costs reaching $200,000 when combined with the cost of a bachelor’s degree. She said federal financial aid is insufficient to give poorer students a chance become pilots. “Unlike other career paths that require additional professional credentialing, such as doctors and lawyers, accredited pilot training programs can’t access additional lending available through graduate aid programs to cover the higher costs,” she said in her prepared remarks. The demand for pilots will continue to grow, Black forecasts. Fewer than 8% of the pilot workforce are under the age of 30, and many are entering the cockpit as a second career. “These pilots were long called to the career path but were only able to surmount the financial obstacles later in life after they had built up their own savings and credit histories,” Black said in her prepared remarks. But the union representing most US airline pilots urged Congress against changing pilot qualification and training standards in an attempt to address the pilot shortage, saying some ideas would compromise safety. “This is no time to weaken safety standards,” Jason Ambrosi, President of the Air Line Pilots Association told the House Transportation subcommittee on aviation. Thanks to requirements put in place after a series of airline crashes, “passenger fatalities have dropped by 99.8 percent,” he said. “This pilot training framework has also produced tens of thousands more pilots over the last decade than airlines needed,” Ambrosi said, pushing back on arguments from the Regional Airline Association and others in the industry that there are not enough qualified pilots. “The United States has certificated nearly 64,000 airline transport pilots since July of 2013 while airlines have hired to fill approximately 40,000 positions,” he added. The Regional Airline Association, representing carriers that connect major cities to smaller regional airports, noted that the airlines are not the only destination for pilots with that qualification and warned of a significant pilot shortage that will get worse with a “tsunami” of retirements. Companies that fly business or charter planes are also hiring, RAA chief Black said. But Ambrosi argued that the airlines are under-staffed right now because they are not providing pilots adequate pay and quality of life conditions, and because of management decisions made during the pandemic. “The current labor market is complicated by pilots moving among carriers as they leave airlines that offer less attractive careers for those offering better pay and quality of life.” He also pushed back on arguments for raising the pilot retirement age. A proposal to increase the mandatory retirement age by two years to 67 would cause airline scheduling headaches, he said. Senior airline pilots frequently fly international routes, but international rules have an age 65 limit. When pressed on other pilot positions, such as charter aircraft, allowing pilots to work until age 70, Ambrosi said he did not represent those workers. The hearing also discussed a significant lack of diversity among pilots who tend to be mostly male and mostly white, and potential ways to address that issue, which could also help address any pilot shortages. There was a widely acknowledged shortage of pilots even before the pandemic. The airlines received billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money during the pandemic, with a prohibition not to layoff staff, in an effort to make sure the shortage didn’t get worse. But to save money, many airlines offered buyouts and early retirement packages to trim costs during the pandemic. The pandemic also interrupted the pipeline of new pilots. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/19/business/pilot-shortage-retirement-tsunami/index.html Boeing 747 Hub: Air China Brings The Jumbo Jet Back To Frankfurt Using the 747-8, Frankfurt will (for now) be the carrier's only long-haul route by the type. Air China is returning the Boeing 747-8 to its long-haul network. While they have been used domestically, heavily influenced by the pandemic, soon they'll be back on Beijing Capital – the carrier's main airport – to Frankfurt. Air China is, of course, one of only three scheduled passenger airlines to use the 747-8, alongside Lufthansa and Korean Air. Air China's 747-8 to Frankfurt As reported by Aeroroutes and confirmed on Air China's website, the Star Alliance member will again use the 747-8 to Frankfurt. Lifting off on May 1st, the 365-seat 747-8 will replace the 311-seat 777-300ER that is currently used. Its 747-8s have 12 first class seats, 54 in business, 66 in premium economy, and 233 in economy. The equipment shift means that each departure will now have premium economy (the 777-300ER has none). There will also be four more first class seats and 12 more in business, but 28 fewer seats in economy. It is becoming more premium-heavy. What is the schedule? The 747-8 will operate three of the carrier's 10 weekly flights to the German airport, as shown below, with all times local. As Lufthansa and Air China are Star Alliance carriers, it is very much a Star route. Beijing Capital to Frankfurt: CA965, 02:30-06:50; three-weekly 747-8 Beijing Capital to Frankfurt: CA931, 13:55-18:15; daily, 777-300ER Frankfurt to Beijing Capital: CA966, 13:55-05:15+1; three-weekly, 747-8 Frankfurt to Beijing Capital: CA932, 20:15-11:25+1; daily, 777-300ER Stay aware: Sign up for my weekly new routes newsletter. Where else does it use the 747-8? According to ch-aviation.com, Air China's first 747-8 arrived almost nine years ago, in September 2014. The last of its seven-strong subfleet arrived in June 2015. As of April 19th and subject to change, it'll use the type on four routes across the rest of the year. The latest Cirium data shows that Air China has up to six 747-8 departures from Beijing Capital on some days, but as few as one. Its network is as follows: Beijing Capital to Guangzhou: up to triple daily Beijing Capital to Shanghai Hongqiao: up to triple daily Beijing Capital to Frankfurt: three weekly (see above) Beijing Capital to Chengdu Shuangliu: just twice (April 29th, May 3rd) On October 29th, the first day airlines in the Northern Hemisphere shift to winter schedules, these six departures are all scheduled by the 747-8. Of course, things could change. 02:30: CA965, Beijing-Frankfurt 09:00: CA1321, Beijing-Guangzhou 11:00: CA1315, Beijiing-Guangzhou 11:30: CA1557, Beijing-Shanghai 12:00: CA1339, Beijing-Guangzhou 14:00: CA1521, Beijing-Shanghai Where did it operate before? Previously, Air China also used the 747-8 from Beijing to New York JFK, San Francisco, and Chongqing. Cirium shows that it was also deployed to Washington Dulles, albeit on just 15 occasions, together with one-offs to Kunming, Shenzhen, and London Heathrow. https://simpleflying.com/air-china-boeing-747-china-return/ Curt Lewis