Flight Safety Information - February 14, 2024 No. 033 In This Issue : Incident: Oman B789 at Milan on Feb 8th 2024, cracked windshield : Incident: RAM B738 near Casablanca on Feb 10th 2024, loss of cabin pressure : NTSB Disputes FAA $741.28 Million Estimate On 25-Hour CVR Rule : Etihad enables pilots to fly both A350 and A380 aircraft : California Acquires, Begins Retrofitting Seven New C-130 Aircraft to Expand Firefighting Fleet : Navy Greyhound Aircraft, Slated for Retirement, Are Now Filling Vital Role of Grounded Ospreys : Medical Standards and FAR 61.53 : Pilots got their payday. Now flights attendants are pushing airlines for higher wages : CALENDAR OF EVENTS Incident: Oman B789 at Milan on Feb 8th 2024, cracked windshield An Oman Air Boeing 787-9, registration A4O-SC performing flight WY-144 from Milan Malpensa (Italy) to Muscat (Oman), was climbing out of Malpensa's runway 35R when the crew stopped the climb at 5000 feet reporting a cracked windshield. The aircraft returned to Milan for a safe landing on runway 35R about 30 minutes after departure. The aircraft is still on the ground in Milan 5 days later. https://avherald.com/h?article=514e78ef&opt=0 Incident: RAM B738 near Casablanca on Feb 10th 2024, loss of cabin pressure A RAM Royal Air Maroc Boeing 737-800, registration CN-RGH performing flight AT-940 from Casablanca (Morocco) to Rome Fiumicino (Italy), was enroute at FL380 about 120nm northeast of Casablanca when the crew initiated an emergency descent and turn back towards Casablanca due to the loss of cabin pressure. The aircraft descended to FL100 levelling off about 8 minutes later (average rate of descent 3500 fpm) and returned to Casablanca for a safe landing about 70 minutes after departure. A replacement Boeing 737-800 registration CN-ROP reached Rome with a delay of about 4 hours. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground about 54 hours after landing back. https://avherald.com/h?article=514ddecb&opt=0 NTSB Disputes FAA $741.28 Million Estimate On 25-Hour CVR Rule The National Transportation Safety Board has once again urged the Federal Aviation Administration to mandate that all aircraft equipped with a cockpit voice recorder and a flight data recorder can record 25 hours of audio. The current standard only records two hours and then overwrites the recording. This means critical information could be lost, as was the case in the recent Alaska Airlines 737-9 MAX accident. The FAA has announced plans to require 25-hour CVRs but limited the rule to newly built aircraft, citing cost estimates of $741.28 million if the rule were to include a retrofit requirement. The NTSB believes the rule should extend to existing airplanes equipped with CVRs and flight data recorders and disputes the FAA’s cost analysis. 25-Hour CVRs Required Internationally First introduced in 1966 with 30 minutes of taped recording time, the technology of Cockpit Voice Recorders has improved significantly. The most recent models use advanced solid-state memory that can be easily expanded. They also have a unique recording system with a built-in battery so they can keep working even if the plane's electrical system fails. Given international requirements for extended CVR recording, many companies are already making CVRs that can record for 25 hours. The European Union Aviation Safety Agency and the International Civil Aviation Organization have set a minimum recording time of 25 hours for heavier long-haul aircraft made after January 1, 2021, specifically those with a maximum certificated takeoff mass of more than 27,000 kg long-haul planes. The FAA's proposed rule would align with these standards for 25-hour CVRs, but because the FAA issues rules by operation type rather than aircraft type, the requirement would apply more broadly. The FAA is required to perform a cost analysis on any significant rule it might introduce. To avoid a significant economic impact of the 25-hour CVR rule, the FAA has limited the proposed rule to new planes manufactured one year after the rule goes into effect. Given aircraft service life can be up to four decades, the NTSB believes limiting the rule on extended CVR recordings only to newly manufactured aircraft would lead to too many unanswered questions in critical investigations. At Least 14 Accident Investigations Hampered By Limited CVR Recordings In its comments to the FAA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the 25-hour CVRs, the NTSB says investigations into at least 14 accidents, including the January 5 Alaska AirlinesALK -2% accident, were hindered by the lack of CVR data to analyze flight crew actions and decision-making processes. The FAA argues that requiring a retrofit of existing planes would pose an excessive cost burden. “Applying a $25,000 CVR unit cost spread across the estimated 29,651 current fleet would result in roughly $741.28 million (undiscounted) in equipment cost compared to the $195.62 million (undiscounted) in incremental upgrade costs from the proposed rule. Retrofitting current aircraft would also incur additional costs, such as aircraft downtime and labor hours required to replace the CVR unit, which would further increase the total cost,” the FAA states in the NPRM. However, the NTSB disputes that figure, saying if the retrofit rule applied only to aircraft that are required to have both a CVR and FDR, then the affected fleet would be 13,500 airplanes. “The 5-year retrofit period would also allow operators the flexibility to schedule replacement of 2-hour CVRs during regular CVR maintenance, which would further reduce compliance costs,” the NTSB states in its comments to the FAA. Consequently, the NTSB urges the FAA to revise its cost-benefit analysis and consider a rule including new and existing aircraft to ensure comprehensive coverage and enhanced safety outcomes. Lost Audio On Alaska Airlines Investigation NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy emphasized the importance of preserving CVR audio for understanding the challenges faced by flight crews during emergencies. “In the recent Alaska Airlines door plug blowout accident, our investigators don’t have the CVR audio to fully understand all of the challenges the flight crew faced in response to the emergency,” Homendy said in an NTSB statement. “Any investigation in which the CVR audio is overwritten and unavailable to us, means that we may miss opportunities to address safety issues identified on recordings. And that’s unacceptable.” The NTSB first recommended the FAA mandate 25-hour CVRs in 2018, prompted by a near-collision at San Francisco International Airport involving an Air Canada flight in 2017 where the time-limited recording led to overwritten CVR data. “CVRs are among the most valuable tools for accident investigation because they provide contemporaneous information on flight crew intentions and coordination as well other factors, such as procedural compliance, workload, fatigue, and situational awareness,” Tim LeBaron, director of the NTSB’s Office of Aviation Safety said in the NTSB statement. “This information is critical to our ability to conduct more thorough investigations and target safety recommendations more effectively.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2024/02/14/ntsb-disputes-faa-74128-million-estimate-on-25-hour-cvr-rule/?sh=4b53bd7f74e8 Etihad enables pilots to fly both A350 and A380 aircraft Etihad has achieved the qualification for its pilots to seamlessly operate both Airbus A350 and A380 aircraft interchangeably. This milestone positions Etihad as one of the pioneering airlines globally to attain such versatility in its pilot capabilities. Airline pilots are typically restricted to flying only one aircraft type. However, under certain conditions such as high similarity of flight deck, pilot procedures, and the implementation of special training, pilots may be enabled to operate two similar aircraft types through a dedicated programme approved by the aircraft manufacturer and the Civil Aviation Authority, known as ‘Mixed Fleet Flying’ or ‘MFF’. Mohammad Al Bulooki, chief operating officer at Etihad Airways said: "Etihad Airways is proud to be the one of the very first airlines to qualify its pilots to fly both the Airbus A350 and A380. “This achievement will enhance the resilience and flexibility of the airline’s network and is testament to our commitment to continuously push the boundaries of efficiency, innovation, and customer satisfaction, and at all times ensuring safety is Etihad’s number one priority.” Over the past decade, Etihad has obtained similar approvals to qualify its Airbus pilots to interchangeably fly the A320 and A330 types, A330 and A340 types, and its Boeing pilots to fly the 777 and 787 types, setting new standards for fleet commonality. Building on this legacy, the latest approval to fly both the Airbus A350 and A380 will further enhance the efficiency and flexibility of Etihad’s widebody network. https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/training/etihad-enables-pilots-to-fly-both-a350-and-a380-aircraft California Acquires, Begins Retrofitting Seven New C-130 Aircraft to Expand Firefighting Fleet WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: California is further expanding and upgrading its nation-leading firefighting fleet with seven new C-130H planes to protect people from wildfires, with the first of these aircraft expected to begin operations in the fall. SACRAMENTO – Following Governor Gavin Newsom’s efforts to bolster CAL FIRE’s firefighting fleet, President Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act which authorized the official transfer of seven C-130H aircraft from the United States Coast Guard to CAL FIRE. This finishes the partnership which was started by the late Senator Dianne Feinstein and continued in recent months by Senator Alex Padilla and other California leaders. WHAT GOVERNOR NEWSOM SAID: “We’re putting more planes in the sky and boots on the ground than ever before to protect Californians from the threat of devastating wildfires. These new C-130H aircraft, when they’re modified to fight fires, will significantly boost our capabilities.” As part of a comprehensive conversion strategy, CAL FIRE will equip each C-130H aircraft with a 4,000-gallon Retardant Delivery System (RDS), reflecting a strategic investment to optimize firefighting efficiency. The first of these aircraft are expected to begin flying in the fall. CAL FIRE plans to strategically deploy five C-130Hs to air attack bases in Chico, Fresno, Paso Robles, Ramona, and Sacramento, with two additional aircraft for surge capacity and maintaining response capabilities during mandatory maintenance cycles. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/02/13/california-acquires-begins-retrofitting-seven-new-c-130-aircraft-to-expand-firefighting-fleet/ Navy Greyhound Aircraft, Slated for Retirement, Are Now Filling Vital Role of Grounded Ospreys The Navy's top aviation officer said the grounding of the V-22 Osprey has forced him to tap into his remaining C-2 Greyhound aircraft in order to keep aircraft carriers in the Pacific and the Middle East supplied and operational. "Lucky for the Navy that the C-2 Greyhound is still available," Vice Adm. Daniel Cheever told a crowd at a panel discussion at the annual WEST 2024 conference Tuesday. Cheever said the sea service has seen "limited operational impact at this point" from tapping the Greyhounds to fill its needs, but that there will be "significant operational impacts" in the future if the Osprey isn't returned to service following a grounding across the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps that resulted from a Nov. 29 crash in Japan that killed eight airmen. The Greyhound has been a staple of aircraft carrier life for decades. Cmdr. Beth Teach, a spokeswoman for Cheever, said in an email that the aircraft has been in service for 60 years, but the Navy is planning to retire it entirely by 2026. For now, though, the last remaining squadron of 15 Greyhounds "is currently surging to meet the Carrier Onboard Delivery mission for deployed aircraft carriers in U.S. 5th and 7th Fleets," Teach confirmed. The Osprey has been barred from flying for 69 days now after the deadly crash. Military.com learned last week that Pentagon safety officials are talking with the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy about the potential risks involved with flying the Osprey again. The status of the current Defense Department probe, what prompted officials to start talking with the services, and a possible timeline for putting the V-22 back in the air are still unknown. The head of the Air Force's special operations command told reporters Tuesday that there are "conversations going on at multiple levels" about getting the Osprey flying again but added that there are no new findings or timelines to report. Meanwhile, the impact for the Marine Corps is far more serious. Lt. Gen. Karsten Heckl said that the Corps has seen "dramatic impacts" from the flying halt. Heckl noted that operations for three Marine expeditionary units, or MEUs -- including the 26th MEU currently on deployment with the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group in the Mediterranean -- have been affected. The Greyhound surge comes amid the Navy's efforts to remove the aircraft from service entirely. The service has stopped training new pilots and is beginning to halt the purchase of supplies and parts for the aircraft. "It's been the workhorse for years and years and years," Cheever said. "They're not sundowned yet so we're maintaining that capability and capacity as we go through this [grounding]." https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/02/13/navy-greyhound-aircraft-slated-retirement-are-now-filling-vital-role-of-grounded-ospreys.html Medical Standards and FAR 61.53 In addition to medical exams, pilots must also self-certify they are fit to fly before every flight By ROBERT SANCETTA • AIN Contributor Pilots are often frustrated when their aviation medical examiners (AMEs) tell them that the protocols that we must comply with at the time of the FAA exam are just a bit different than how we handle things between FAA exams. This can be confusing for everyone involved. At the time of the exam, a pilot must meet all aeromedical standards. These are outlined in FAR Part 67. These standards are then referenced in various FAR sections and in the general information sections throughout the FAA website. All of this information is available to pilots. The medical standards include hard and fast, measurable parameters for things such as vision and hearing. The FAA is further given the mandate and authority to rule on any medical condition that it deems relevant to aviation safety. Also included in the FARs are protocols to determine how to proceed toward a special issuance authorization of a medical certificate when a formally disqualifying diagnosis is discovered in a pilot. The ”specifically disqualifying” diagnoses include cardiac disease requiring treatment, diabetes requiring medication, substance abuse and dependence, and several other conditions, including neurological and psychiatric. There are only 15 specifically disqualifying conditions noted in the regulations. The “generally disqualifying” conditions include any and all of the many thousands that exist, not referenced specifically in the regulations, but in the opinion of the FAA might compromise aviation safety. Some of these include kidney stones, sleep apnea, thyroid disorders, cardiac arrhythmia, blood clots, glaucoma, and countless others. Other than for a few permanently disqualifying conditions such as epilepsy (a seizure disorder that is ongoing and recurrent) and certain psychiatric disorders such as bipolar disorder, for most other conditions, once the pilot is recovered and stable, FAA medical certification is possible through the special issuance protocols. As I have noted previously, over 99.9 percent of pilots applying for a medical certificate will ultimately be approved, even if some do require a comprehensive evaluation process. As an aside, and a topic for another discussion, many mood disorders such as depression requiring medication have been approvable for many years through the special issuance process. At the time of the exam, a pilot must meet all applicable standards—and, if needed for a previously disclosed concerning diagnosis, have an FAA authorization letter permitting the AME to issue the certificate. In essence, the pilot must be fully capable of leaving my office with their coveted new medical certificate and going straight to the airport to fly a trip. I cannot issue a medical certificate to a pilot who does not meet all of the standards but states that they should do so soon. Pilots on occasion have argued that it is acceptable for me to issue a medical certificate in advance of their achieving “stability” of a medical condition in question because they “are on vacation” and won’t fly until the condition is improved. It doesn’t work that way. I have had pilots arrive at my office, limping on crutches with a cast on one of their legs. They tell me that they need their medical now because they want to fly as soon as the orthopedist or podiatrist removes the cast and affirms that the pilot has normal strength and range of motion. I reluctantly inform these pilots to return to my office once they have fully recovered and could actually operate the controls of the aircraft and participate in an emergency evacuation if it were to be needed. A frustrating and more complicated example of this for pilots is to arrive for an FAA exam having recently had a cardiac stent placed. The pilot jubilantly tells the AME that the cardiologist said they are “good to go.” However, neither the pilot nor the cardiologist knew that cardiac disease requiring treatment is a specifically disqualifying condition that requires a formal waiting period before even beginning the follow-up testing and application process for a special issuance authorization. Another simpler example is that of a pilot who very clearly does not meet the vision standards but tells me they have new glasses on order. I again, reluctantly, inform the pilot to return when they have their new glasses. There are no provisions in the regulations that permit an AME to enter an exam that shows that the pilot did not meet the standards but that their healthcare provider “promises” they will soon. Any AME who issued a certificate in that kind of circumstance would very quickly receive a call from the FAA to discuss what the heck the AME just did. If a pilot is on the “sick list” for severe sinusitis or other respiratory infection and obviously could not act as a crewmember until recovered, they should not present to their AME’s office expecting to have a medical certificate issued. The pilot should also wait until they have recovered. While it is clear that, at the time of the FAA medical exam, there is not much “slack” available in the AME’s decision-making process, what happens between medical exams? The pilot is not going to be in touch with their AME every day and may not need their next FAA exam for another six, 12, or 24 months—or even up to five years in some cases—depending on their age and the class of medical certificate they need. A pilot is expected to medically self-assess at all times, as per the general guidelines in FAR 61.53 (prohibition on operations during medical deficiency). Somewhat similar to FAR 91.3 (responsibility and authority of the pilot in command), these are brief yet powerful and all-encompassing directives. A lot of responsibility is placed directly on the pilot. A pilot must determine if they are fit to fly on any given day. You will notice that FAR 61.53 does not mention the FAA itself, the pilot’s AME, or any outside consultants. The pilot must determine if they are fit to fly. While at times it is prudent for the pilot to seek the counsel of their treating physician, AME, or consulting aeromedical advisor, the ultimate decision is placed on the pilot as to whether they are fit to fly. The AME’s decision at the time of the FAA exam is “regulatory.” In fact, the actual exam is the only time that an AME’s opinion is regulatory. At all other times, the AME’s opinion, along with opinions from outside consultation services, are advisory only. The FAA, however, can issue a formal opinion at any time. That opinion is the final word and is regulatory. In the next blog in this series, I will explain how we deal with some of the questions and nebulous situations that arise, which can at times be confusing to the pilot, the AME, and even to the FAA. An important take-home point is that the formal medical standards and FAR 61.53 always apply. Please take your responsibilities to aeromedical ethics seriously, because you could be challenged if something happens that brings your medical qualifications into question. Dr. Robert Sancetta is a former DC-10 captain with 11,000 flight hours. He has worked as a Senior AME since 1993 and is appointed as AME Consultant to the FAA Federal Air Surgeon. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2024-02-09/ainsight-medical-standards-and-far-6153 Pilots got their payday. Now flights attendants are pushing airlines for higher wages Flight attendants from United, Alaska, American and Southwest picketed at major airports on Tuesday. Flight attendant unions are seeking pay increases and compensation for work during boarding. Pilots at major carriers have won large raises, partly due to a shortage of aviators in the post-pandemic travel boom. Airline pilots won pay raises worth billions of dollars in new labor deals last year. Flight attendants are now pushing for similar improvements. Flight attendants from United Airlines, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Alaska Airlines and others picketed Tuesday at dozens of airports around the U.S., demanding higher wages and a better quality of life. "We have been in a period of austerity for 20 years, and it's time the industry paid up," said Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, which represents cabin crews at United, Spirit, Frontier and others. The demonstrations mark the first mass pickets jointly held by the labor unions, which represent more than 100,000 flight attendants at U.S. airlines between them. New labor deals would come not just on the heels of pilot contracts, but also pay raises won by autoworkers, Hollywood writers and at major companies like UPS. Flight attendants at most of the largest airlines haven't received pay increases since before the pandemic, which paused contract talks, while the cost of living rose sharply in recent years. American and other carriers told CNBC they are optimistic that they will reach agreements with their flight attendants in the coming months. Stagnant pay Flight attendants make an average of about $67,000 a year, according to the Labor Department, though pay can range from around $38,000 at the bottom 10th percentile to about $97,000 at the top. Inflation has been "the most difficult for our new hires," said Julie Hedrick, national president of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, which represents about 27,000 flight attendants at American. "We want [American] to come to the table and recognize what we've done to return this airline to profitability." Flight attendants for the most part are paid when the aircraft door is closed. Unions are largely pushing for either ground pay or boarding pay to compensate flight attendants for their work before takeoff. Delta Air Lines, whose flight attendants aren't unionized, started paying flight attendants for boarding at half their hourly rate in 2022. (The Association of Flight Attendants started a new union drive there before the pandemic.) Strike threat During the pandemic, after most travel resumed, cabin crew members faced increased job stress from packed planes, reduced staffing, overloaded schedules and at times, unruly travelers, according to the unions. "It doesn't surprise me that they're unhappy," said Conor Cunningham, an airline equities analyst at Melius Research. "Remember what happened in the pandemic: They had to be the police of the sky. They got hit with inflation just like all of us and their wages didn't increase with it." Despite the picketing Tuesday, the aviation industry is unlikely to see strikes or work stoppages like those seen in the auto and entertainment industries last year. Flight attendants' and other aviation workers' contracts don't have expiration dates, and would require federal release to go on strike. Still, several flight attendant unions have approved strike authorizations, and all four carriers are negotiating with their flight attendants' unions through federal mediation. Southwest Airlines flight attendants rejected a tentative agreement in a vote last year. "We reached an industry-leading Tentative Agreement with TWU 556 in October 2023 and are scheduled to meet next week with the union and the National Mediation Board to continue working toward an agreement that benefits our Flight Attendants and Southwest," the airline said in a statement. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/business/money-report/pilots-got-their-payday-now-flights-attendants-are-pushing-airlines-for-higher-wages/3453004/ CALENDAR OF EVENTS • SINGAPORE AIRSHOW 2024 - February 20 - 25 • HAI Heli-Expo 2024 - February 26 - 29 - Anaheim, CA • 2024 Women in Aviation International Conference - March 21-23 (Orlando) • SMU Air Law Symposium - March 21-22, 2024 ( Dallas, TX) • 2024 ACSF Safety Symposium – Air Charter Safety Foundation - April 1-3, 2024 • Blazetech - Aircraft Fire Hazards, Protection, and Investigation Course June 4 - 7, 2024 • Airborne Public Safety Association, Inc. (APSCON 2024) - July 29 - August 3; Houston TX • Asia Pacific Airline Training Symposium - APATS 2024, 0-11 September, 2024, Singapore • • 2024 ISASI - Lisbon, Portugal - September 30 to October 4, 2024 • 2024 NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition - Oct. 22-24 (Vegas) Curt Lewis