JetBlog! Interactive

Pilot error not to blame for Madrid air crash, say investigators

The preliminary report by investigators into the Madrid air crash appears to absolve the pilots of any blame for the accident which killed 154 people. The crash on August 20 is blamed on a fault which prevented the wing flaps from opening on the Spanair MD-82.

Initial findings by the Civil Aviation authority show the pilots followed recommended protocol in the moments leading up to the crash of flight JK5022, which was bound for Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.

Evidence from the black box data recorder indicated that the pilots made the appropriate checks on take-off but that an alert system in the cockpit failed to warn them that the wing flaps had not deployed correctly.

Two other alarms, warning of nearby ground and imminent stall, did work as the pilots struggled to gain control when the plane left the runway at Barajas airport.

Qantas probe focuses on flight control system 'irregularity'

Investigators are focusing on a potential irregularity in the flight control system of a Qantas Airways Airbus A330-300 that experienced a sudden nose pitch down mid-flight resulting in around 74 people on board being injured on October 7.

The pilots received centralised aircraft monitoring messages to say there was "some irregularity with the aircraft's elevator control system", the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)) says in a statement today.

This statement is referring to an accident yesterday afternoon while the aircraft was at 37,000ft (11,280m) en route from Singapore to Perth.

The aircraft "climbed approximately 300ft...during which time the crew had initiated non-normal check-list and response actions", says the ATSB.

Then the aircraft "abruptly pitched nose-down, [and] during this sudden and significant nose-down pitch, a number of passengers, cabin crew and loose objects were thrown about the aircraft cabin, primarily in the rear of the aircraft".

This resulted in "a range of injuries to some cabin crew and passengers" including broken bones.

ATSB says the pilots first made a 'pan pan' emergency broadcast to air traffic control but a few minutes later called 'mayday' and requested clearance to land at Learmonth rather than continuing to Perth.

"The aircraft landed at about 15:30 local time, about 40min after the start of the event."

ATSB says the event has been classified as an aircraft accident because of the nature of the injuries.

It says of the 303 passengers and 10 crew on board, 14 people had serious - but not life threatening - injuries.

An additional group of up to 30 had serious enough injuries to receive medical treatment in hospital and up to a further 30 required first aid treatment, it adds.

ATSB says it currently has seven investigators examining or about to examine the aircraft plus Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority, France's Bureau Enquetes-Accidents and Airbus are involved in the investigation.

It says it plans to issue a preliminary factual report within 30 days.

Qantas says in a separate statement that the severely injured people on board the aircraft were airlifted from Learmonth to Perth by Australia's Royal Flying Doctor Service. Other passengers were flown to Perth on Skywest Airlines, it adds.

Learmonth is an airport and airbase south of Exmouth, a remote town near Western Australia's northwest coast.

Qantas' A330-300 remains in Learmonth because the ATSB is inspecting it, says the airline.

The airline's CEO, Geoff Dixon, says the carrier is assisting with the investigation and the aircraft's flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders have been removed and will undergo assessment.

According to Flight's ACAS Daily Alert the A330-300 involved has local registration VH-QPA.

Source: Air Transport Intelligence news

FAA faulted for laxness on maintenance outsourcing

WASHINGTON - Nine U.S. airlines outsourced more than 70 percent of their major aircraft maintenance last year, and federal aviation officials' oversight of repair facilities is lagging, according to a government report.

One-fourth of the outsourced maintenance is being handled by contractors overseas.

The Transportation Department's inspector general said the outsourcing, which has more than doubled in four years, was of concern because the Federal Aviation Administration has failed to closely track how much maintenance is farmed out and where it is performed.

Although the FAA has taken steps to improve, "the agency still faces challenges in determining where the most critical maintenance occurs and ensuring sufficient oversight," investigators said in the report issued this week.

In their effort to lower costs, the report said, airlines continue to shift their heavy airframe maintenance from their own in-house mechanics and engineers to hundreds of repair companies in the United States, Canada, Mexico and countries in Central America and Asia.

Nine major airlines examined by the inspector general outsourced 71 percent of their heavy air frame maintenance — repairs and servicing to an aircraft's body, wings and tail — in 2007, up from 34 percent in 2003. More than a quarter of that maintenance — 27 percent — was performed at foreign repair facilities.

The airlines examined in the report were AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines, America West Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines. American Airlines, the nation's largest domestic carrier, was not included, the inspector general said, because it handles most maintenance in-house.

The FAA relies heavily on the airlines — and the repair facilities themselves — to make sure outsourced repairs meet the air safety standards and requirements of the individual airlines.

FAA requires each repair station to undergo a government inspection at least once a year, FAA spokesman Les Dorr said. The report says those inspections often are not being conducted by agency inspectors most familiar with standards and requirements of the airline whose planes are being repaired.

As much as five years lapsed between visits to some major maintenance facilities by inspectors assigned to individual airlines. Inspectors not assigned to a specific airline may not be familiar with the special maintenance requirements of that airline's planes, which are often customized.

The report cited a foreign facility, which repairs engines for an unidentified airline, that had not been inspected by an FAA inspector assigned to that airline in five years, a period in which the facility had repaired 39 of the air carrier's engines.

The report recommends FAA require airlines to provide more complete information on the extent and location of outsourced repairs, ensure air carriers and repair stations are better able to spot and correct problems, and improve the documentation of inspection results.

The FAA agreed it needs to do more. "We actually concur with all the inspector general's recommendations," Dorr said. "We have procedures in place that already address some of the recommendations, and we have some projects in progress that address others."

One safety expert, however, said the report underscores that FAA still has a long way to go toward resolving the outsourcing issue, which has been source of controversy for the agency for several years.

"What this report tells me is there is still a big problem with oversight — the FAA is not verifying that the oversight being provided by the air carriers is doing the job it's supposed to," said John Goglia, a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board.

FMI: Click Here

Article: Business aviation shows its safety weaknesses

By David Learmount
Flightglobal

Business aviation is subject to US and international safety initiatives that appear to be welcomed by the industry, but statistics suggest many operators are not getting the message. Runway excursion resulting in serious damage, one of the accident types theoretically among the easiest to eliminate, occurs regularly.

In 2007 there were 10 reported serious runway excursion accidents involving business jets, almost all in the USA. To late September the number of business jet excursion accidents was five. The Flight Safety Foundation, which studied 251 business aircraft accidents from 1991 to 2002 recently, found that 63 of them (25.1%) involved runway excursions.

Speaking at the European Business Aviation Association Conference and Exhibition in Geneva this year, FSF president Bill Voss highlighted runway safety in all its forms as being worthy of particular attention, but excursions in particular. He said: "Data shows runway excursions are the most common type of runway safety accident (96%) and the most common type of fatal runway safety accident (80%)."

The US National Business Aircraft Association has registered the industry-wide concern with the number of runway excursion accidents and reiterated the message to its member operators. Heightened concern followed the Federal Aviation Administration runway safety awareness campaign after the National Transportation Safety Board's publication of its report on an overrun from a snow-contaminated runway at Chicago Midway airport in December 2005. The fatal Comair Bombardier CRJ100ER crash in 2006 gave rise to new terminology describing a potentially serious runway safety risk: "runway confusion" - using the wrong runway without realising it. But, as Voss pointed out, among all categories of runway safety events, runway excursions produce 80% of the fatal accidents.

Collision risk high on U.S. airport runways: safety expert

The rate of close calls on airport runways in the United States is up over last year and the risk of a collision is high, a U.S. government investigator said Thursday.

Gerald Dillingham, the General Accountability Office's top expert on aviation safety, told a House of Representatives panel that there were 24 of the most serious kinds of runway incursions — defined as an event in which any aircraft, vehicle or person intrudes in space reserved for takeoff or landing — in fiscal 2008. Download gao_rw_incursions_092508_d081169t1.pdf

That's the same number of serious incursions as last year. But since air travel and airport operations have declined this year, the rate of serious incidents — measured by number of incidents per one million takeoffs and landings — has increased about 10 per cent, Dillingham said.

Both the number and rate of all types of runway incursions, ranging from near collisions to minor incidents in which there was no threat to safety, also are up, he said.

"We all agree … that [the Federal Aviation Administration] has given a higher priority to runway safety," including following several GAO recommendations, Dillingham said. "Despite these actions the risk of runway collisions is still high."

Serious incidents down from high of 53 in 2001
FAA Chief Operating Officer Hank Krakowski said the agency has made "solid progress" this year. He noted that the 24 serious incidents in 2007 were down from a high of 53 incidents in 2001.

FAA: Two controllers not fully certified

Pair was unsupervised in tower when two planes nearly collided, top official testifies.
By Josh Drobnyk | Call Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - A top official at the Federal Aviation Administration told lawmakers Thursday he's concerned that two relatively inexperienced air traffic controllers were alone on duty in the tower -- while other controllers were on break -- when two planes narrowly missed colliding last week at Lehigh Valley International Airport.

A regional jet carrying 39 passengers had to swerve on takeoff last Friday night to avoid a small plane that was taxiing on the runway. They missed one another by about 10 feet.

Testifying before a U.S. House aviation panel, Hank Krakowski, chief operating officer of the FAA's Air Traffic Organization, said neither of the two controllers in the LVIA tower was fully certified. Of the six other controllers on duty, three were on break and the others were handling radar.

Krakowski said the controller who cleared the Chicago-bound United Express flight for take-off completed his training a month ago, but has been decertified and must undergo more training, as is normal procedure after a near-collision. The controller in charge at the time had been at LVIA for 10 months and had five years of experience.

Though neither was fully certified to handle every controller position, both had the proper training to handle traffic, Krakowski said.

Wing flaps and alarm failed on Madrid crash jet

Wing flaps failed on the Spanair flight that crashed last month and an alarm that is supposed to warn pilots of the problem never sounded, according to a preliminary report yesterday on the accident that killed 154 people.

The investigators did not say whether they believed the flap fault caused the 20 August crash in Madrid that killed all but 18 people on the MD-82.

Investigators said they needed to further study a faulty air temperature gauge outside the cockpit, a problem that forced the pilot to abandon a first attempt to take off.

Spanair has described it as a minor glitch that was resolved by turning off the gauge. The plane crashed an hour later on its second attempt to take off.

However, the report said the faulty gauge might be linked to the failure of the cockpit alarm horn, which is supposed to sound when a departing plane is not properly configured to get off the ground.

The findings were drawn from the flight data and cockpit voice recorders.

FMI: The Scotsman

PAMA/SAE Institute Calls for Subject Matter Experts: Composites, Rotorcraft, Avionics

Everything is looking up in the world of PAMA/SAE Certifications these days. Our first certification, the AMS/AME, has over 125 Honored Colleagues in its ranks and we have been working very hard to establish a significant customer that will tip the scales for a number of organizations evaluating our program. Look for a major announcement within the next month or so. Please visit us online for information on the PAMA/SAE Institute Aviation Maintenance and Production Certification Program.

In the meantime, we have been consumed with filling out our portfolio of certifications in concert with the Professional Certification plan we laid out some two years ago. We have completed the program design for a three-tier Composite/Bonded Structures Technician program in concert with the members of the SAE Commercial Aircraft Composite Repair Committee (CACRC). Sometime this fall we hope to begin formalizing that program with a Job Task Analysis and Test Blueprints. To execute those projects, we need Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to volunteer their time.

If you are interested in participating as a Composites SME, please send your resume to Laura Blanchard, our Certification Coordinator . We'll be distributing more info on this opportunity shortly.

Also, we just announced last Friday the formation of a joint Military/Industry Master Rotorcraft Technician Stakeholders gathering during the last week of October. At this senior stakeholders meeting we will be determing the depth and breadth of the industry's desire for such credentialing - or if it even exists on a broad scale. Our sense is that it does as the Army wants raise the bar for its civil servants and to provide its rotorcraft technicians with transportable credentials when they separate from the service - something most other separating servicemembers have when they enter the civilian workforce. Industry has indicated a passion for growing their rotorcraft technican workforce and we believe our blueprint for a series of increasingly skilled certifications is the ticket to a long term plan. Even though we are not as far along as we are with Composites, we are starting to solicit Rotorcraft SME's also.

If you are interested in participating as a Rotorcraft SME, please send your resume to Laura Blanchard, our Certification Coordinator. We'll also be distributing more info on this opportunity shortly, too.

FAA Told to Audit Airline Safety Data for Accuracy

By Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Staff Writer
The Federal Aviation Administration should audit information it receives from airlines on safety and maintenance issues to ensure its accuracy, a panel of aviation safety experts said yesterday.

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters asked an outside panel earlier this year to review FAA safety policies in the wake of blistering criticism from Congress and the Transportation Department's inspector general that the FAA had grown too cozy with air carriers. The FAA relies heavily on self-reported data from airlines to spot trends that could lead to mechanical failures or plane crashes.

The criticism stemmed from safety lapses in the past two years by American Airlines and Southwest Airlines. The government fined Southwest $10.2 million for flying 46 Boeing 747s that had not been checked for fuselage cracks.

Panel members said they supported the FAA's strategy of working closely with airlines on maintenance and safety issues, citing the approach as integral to the nation's aviation safety system.

Panel member William O. McCabe, a former aviation executive at DuPont, said the FAA had to focus on "leading indicators" by sifting through data. He called the system "looking for ugly."

When a Tragedy Becomes a Crime: Prosecutors Probe Air Disasters

By DANIEL MICHAELS
Wall Street Journal
As investigators search for clues to the crash of Spanair SA Flight 5022 in Madrid last month, families of the 153 victims demand to know who is to blame. Another critical question: whether that will be determined in civil or criminal court.

For six decades, aviation regulators have sought the causes behind and responsibility for plane accidents. Victims' families have sued for damages with civil suits.

Lately, however, public prosecutors are seeking criminal accountability for mistakes that lead to air disasters, raising a thorny legal and moral question: When does human error become a crime?

"It's a Nobel Prize question, figuring out how to coordinate civil and criminal law enforcement," says Harvard Law School professor David Rosenberg.

While it isn't yet clear whether the Spanair crash will prompt criminal charges, several air accidents in Europe this decade have. One of the latest cases stems from the Air France Concorde crash in 2000 that killed 113 people. (That was before the carrier became Air France-KLM SA.) French prosecutors have charged five people and Continental Airlines Inc. with voluntary manslaughter. Among the defendants are three engineers who designed and certified the supersonic plane more than 30 years earlier. Continental and two of its employees are included because a piece of metal that crash investigators believe dropped from one of its planes is suspected of initiating the crash. All the defendants deny the charges.

National justice systems draw the line between civil and criminal cases differently. The U.S. has a range of civil penalties -- such as fines and punitive damages against individuals and companies -- that don't exist in many European legal codes, says Anthony Sebok, a professor at New York's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

In general, countries try to set a high bar for pressing criminal charges. The U.S. usually demands evidence of reckless behavior or gross negligence. In the wake of a 2003 Staten Island ferry crash that killed 11 people, for example, federal prosecutors won prison sentences for the captain, who had passed out on painkillers, and his boss, for failing to enforce rules requiring two pilots in the wheelhouse.