JetBlog! Interactive

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

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.

FAA mandates engine fastener check MD-90s

The US FAA has issued a final airworthiness directive (AD) calling for checks of the aft left and right engine mount support fittings on MD-90-30 aircraft after receiving reports of "loose, cracked or missing fasteners" on "several" aircraft.

The agency says the faulty conditions, found on MD-90s that had accumulated between 18.767 and 25,400 total flight hours and between 15,841 and 27,000 flight cycles, could ultimately lead to separation of the support fitting from the pylon, which could then result in separation of the engine from the airplane.

According to Flight's ACAS database, there are 15 US-registered MD-90-30s, all belonging to Delta Air Lines.

Inspections, which must be carried out within 703 flight cycles after 24 September effective date of the AD, include visual assessment of the fasteners, a gap check for certain washers and fasteners and a torque test of fastener nuts, solutions called out in a 1 August service bulletin issued by Boeing.

The FAA says the AD is to be a considered an interim "until a final action is identified." Delta was not immediately available for comment.

Source: Air Transport Intelligence news

FAA to Get High Marks in Report - Safety Review Gives A Boost to Agency With Many Critics

By CHRISTOPHER CONKEY and ANDY PASZTOR
Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- An independent review team is expected to laud the Federal Aviation Administration's approach to ensuring airline safety, a big boost for an agency criticized after a string of oversight lapses.

But the FAA still confronts several challenges, including how to get airlines to fully comply with its safety directives. The agency said Friday that it is investigating 17 new cases of noncompliance among 11 U.S. carriers. Overall, the agency is investigating about 24 instances of maintenance slipups stemming from about 5,600 reviews of safety compliance this year.

In the most controversial case, Southwest Airlines Co. is contesting a $10.2 million penalty levied by the FAA after the airline operated flights using jets that were overdue for safety inspections. Multiple instances of noncompliance by AMR Corp.'s American Airlines also are under investigation, including wiring slipups that led to thousands of flight cancellations in April. The agency may propose a significantly larger penalty against American than the one pending against Southwest, according to people familiar with the matter.

An American spokesman said "nobody has told us of the proposed dollar amount" for a possible fine. "It's very speculative at this point," he said.

The report from the independent board of safety experts appointed by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters is due Wednesday. It is expected to give the FAA high marks for its safety-enforcement efforts, and generally support the trend toward more voluntary compliance and working in partnership with airlines, according to people familiar with the details. There will be some recommendations to change existing programs, but the thrust of the findings will largely vindicate the agency's approach, management and independence, according to these people.

FAA: US Airlines Comply With ADs 98 Percent Of Time

And They're Working On That Other Two Percent
The results are in following an FAA audit of US airline compliance with Airworthiness Directives, announced in April... and the agency says the results are encouraging.

Acting Administrator Robert Sturgell said Friday FAA inspectors found an overall compliance rate of 98 percent in more than 5,600 audits of Airworthiness Directives (ADs) at US air carriers. In the remaining two percent of the audits, the carriers resolved the issues of noncompliance before the airplanes flew again.

"This audit gives us confidence that, overall, the system is safe and in almost every instance the airlines are complying with our safety directives," Sturgell said.

As ANN reported, the agency's reinvigorated pursuit of airline safety came after two inspectors blew the whistle on the too-friendly relationship between FAA officials tasked to oversee maintenance compliance at Southwest Airlines, and that carrier's management. Minnesota Congressman James Oberstar, who has spearheaded Congressional hearings on the matter, termed that relationship "a culture of coziness," which resulted in FAA inspectors allowing Southwest to skirt mandatory fuselage fatigue inspections on its older Boeing 737 models.

AP Interview: Spanish aviation chief sees multiple causes behind plane crash

By PAUL HAVEN | Associated Press Writer
2:46 PM EDT, August 22, 2008
MADRID, Spain (AP) _ Spain's top aviation official said Friday that a glitch in an air temperature gauge that forced a Madrid jetliner to abandon its first takeoff attempt an hour before it crashed should be closely examined to see if it contributed to the accident.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Civil Aviation chief Manuel Bautista said a combination of failures — either technical, human or both — likely caused Wednesday's crash, which killed 153 people, many of them children and families on vacation. Nineteen people survived.

Aviation experts have described the air gauge problem as a relatively minor thing unlikely to have caused the crash. But Bautista would not rule out a link, saying it depends on what else was happening to the plane.

The glitch occurred while the jet was taxiing on its first takeoff attempt, causing the pilot to turn the plane around. After technicians were brought in to take a look, the gauge was essentially turned off, which is an accepted procedure, and the plane was cleared for takeoff, according to Spanair. It crashed on the second attempt at takeoff.

"A problem with a temperature sensor may not matter at all, or it can be very important, depending on what other circumstances accompany it," Bautista said. "We will have to see what other issues were present."

"Clearly, the breakdown was important enough for the pilot to halt the maneuver and have it reviewed," he told the AP.

Mechanic quizzed over Spain air crash

Police and investigators probe deadly plane crash in Madrid - Mechanic who cleared the plane for takeoff questioned - Spanair official told AP it had no details of the man's testimony
MADRID, Spain (AP) -- Police and investigators probing the deadly plane crash in Madrid have questioned the mechanic who cleared the plane for takeoff after tending to a minor mechanical problem, the airline said Saturday.

Spanair said the mechanic dealt with a problem in an air temperature gauge that forced the pilot to abandon a first attempt to take off. About an hour later, when the MD-82 finally did take off, it crashed near the end of the runway, burning and largely disintegrating. A total of 153 of the 172 people aboard were killed.

The newspaper El Pais quoted unnamed sources close to the investigation as saying that during two sessions of testimony Friday -- first with police and then with crash investigators -- the mechanic insisted that the gauge malfunction was a minor glitch which had nothing to do with Wednesday's crash.

A Spanair official told The Associated Press on Saturday it had no details of the man's testimony, but reiterated that the mechanical problem did not cause the crash. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, citing company rules.

Aviation experts have told The AP this problem probably did not cause the crash.

All 19 survivors of the crash remained hospitalized Saturday, two of them in critical condition. The worst off was a 31-year-old woman with burns to 72 percent of her body. Her husband died in the crash but her six-year-old son survived.

Only 50 bodies have been identified so far. Many were burned beyond recognition and forensic teams have been using DNA techniques for identification. Watch moment of silence »

Spanair said the mechanic dealt with the gauge problem by essentially turning the device off, and said this was an accepted procedure because the gauge was not an absolutely essential piece of equipment.

Aircraft Life Limits are in Our Future

The FAA plans to issue a new rule that would require airframe manufacturers to establish a life-limit for each airframe, based on the “limit of validity” of the engineering data that supports the original maintenance program. A purpose of this exercise is to prevent widespread fatigue damage in aging aircraft, and airframe manufacturers will be required to identify maintenance actions necessary to prevent widespread fatigue damage before the airplane reaches its life-limit.

This rulemaking would require operators of any affected airplane to incorporate the life-limit into the airworthiness limitations section of the aircraft’s instructions for continued airworthiness. In order to operate an affected airplane beyond the life-limit, the operator would need to develop an FAA-approved maintenance program designed to prevent widespread fatigue damage.

The official deadline for publication of this Final Rule is July.