Safety regulators have identified four European Union companies, which are facing operational restrictions following the latest discussions to update the European Commission's 'blacklist' of banned carriers.
While none features on the latest blacklist revision, three carriers from Portugal, Greece and Germany have - at least temporarily - stopped operating their own aircraft. The fourth, Spain's Bravo Airlines, has been banned by default because its operation, Bravo Air Congo, falls under the blanket ban on the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Greek carrier Hellenic Imperial Airways admits its air operator's certificate is on hold, but a spokesman claims the suspension is on a "day-to-day basis", for technical reasons. He adds that the Boeing 747-200 operator is leasing other aircraft, and maintaining services such as its Hajj flights while it addresses the issue.
Sources at the Commission, close to its air safety committee, have also identified Portuguese Lockheed L-1011 operator LuzAir and German MSR Flug-Charter, which uses business jets, as the other two restricted carriers.
LuzAir says it is not currently operating services but a source at the carrier states that its aircraft are on the ground for "scheduled maintenance". A spokesman for MSR Flug-Charter also says the company has stopped operations, but declines to elaborate.
A source close to the Commission's air safety committee, which draws up the list of carriers which are the subject of concern, points out that none of the four EU operators has had its AOC withdrawn by the relevant national authority. But the source adds that three AOCs and one operating license have been suspended.
Discussions over the current revision to the blacklist have drawn particular attention because restrictions have so far notably focused on carriers, which have limited operations in Europe, from areas such as Africa, Indonesia and Central Asia.
"It is difficult to say how many European airlines would have ended with a full ban or operating restrictions if their authorities had not taken measures on their AOCs or operating licenses," says the source, stressing that the blacklist is only a "measure of last resort", intended as a tool to encourage safety improvements.
Cambodia's Siem Reap Airways International and all carriers from Angola are subject to a complete ban on European operations following the latest blacklist update on 14 November.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
segunda-feira, 24 de novembro de 2008
Bird-strike risk high among open-rotor concerns
Bird-strike damage protection rules could emerge as a key design hurdle facing developers of a new generation of fuel-efficient open rotor engines, according to a specialist on propeller power plants.
Speaking at the 'Towards Sustainable Aviation Propulsion' event in Bristol, organized by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Dowty Propellers performance engineer Josef Trchalik said: "The bird-strike test represents a key certification requirement of any aircraft engine. It is not clear yet whether open-rotor blades would be certified according to rules that apply for propellers or if they will be certified as fan blades.
"If the latter is the case then the structure of the open rotor blades will have to be reinforced, which would result in heavier rotor blades and might also restrict the choice of material for the blade structure."
Current bird strike certification requirements differ for propellers and turbofan blades, with propeller blades required to withstand the impact of a significantly lighter bird than fan blades.
Trchalik says bird-strike is a more serious issue for a 'pusher' configuration, which has a similar intake arrangement to a regular turbofan, as there is no fan to shield the engine. Impact-resistance requirements are more easily met with a 'tractor' configuration as the air intakes of an unducted fan would be shielded by two rows of propellers.
Trchalik adds that locating the engines at the rear of the fuselage would increase the chance of debris hitting the blades. "On the other hand, wing-mounted engines are more likely to suck in debris from the runway surface as they are located closer to the ground," he says.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
Speaking at the 'Towards Sustainable Aviation Propulsion' event in Bristol, organized by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Dowty Propellers performance engineer Josef Trchalik said: "The bird-strike test represents a key certification requirement of any aircraft engine. It is not clear yet whether open-rotor blades would be certified according to rules that apply for propellers or if they will be certified as fan blades.
"If the latter is the case then the structure of the open rotor blades will have to be reinforced, which would result in heavier rotor blades and might also restrict the choice of material for the blade structure."
Current bird strike certification requirements differ for propellers and turbofan blades, with propeller blades required to withstand the impact of a significantly lighter bird than fan blades.
Trchalik says bird-strike is a more serious issue for a 'pusher' configuration, which has a similar intake arrangement to a regular turbofan, as there is no fan to shield the engine. Impact-resistance requirements are more easily met with a 'tractor' configuration as the air intakes of an unducted fan would be shielded by two rows of propellers.
Trchalik adds that locating the engines at the rear of the fuselage would increase the chance of debris hitting the blades. "On the other hand, wing-mounted engines are more likely to suck in debris from the runway surface as they are located closer to the ground," he says.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
Qantas takeoff aborted as damaged wing spotted
SYDNEY (AFP) — A Qantas jumbo jet carrying 213 passengers aborted a flight shortly before takeoff from Sydney Saturday when an engineer spotted that one of its wings was damaged, the airline said.
The New Zealand-bound Boeing 747-300 was taxiing towards the runway when damage to a right wing flap was noticed by an engineer on the ground and the pilot was alerted, Qantas said.
"It was a technical issue with the wing prior to departure," an airline spokeswoman told AFP.
All passengers on the plane had been provided with accommodation and booked on another flight on Sunday morning, she said, and the cause of the damage was being assessed.
The incident is the latest in a series of problems suffered by Australia's troubled national airline in recent months.
On Tuesday, two Qantas jumbos were damaged when they collided on the ground at a maintenance base.
In October, a computer glitch caused a Qantas plane to plunge into a 200-metre mid-air nosedive, injuring more than 70 people, with some suffering broken bones.
In July, a Qantas Boeing 747-400 made an emergency landing in Manila after a mid-air blast caused by an exploding oxygen bottle punched a hole in the fuselage during a flight from Hong Kong to Melbourne.
Fonte: Flight Safety Information 24/11/2008.
The New Zealand-bound Boeing 747-300 was taxiing towards the runway when damage to a right wing flap was noticed by an engineer on the ground and the pilot was alerted, Qantas said.
"It was a technical issue with the wing prior to departure," an airline spokeswoman told AFP.
All passengers on the plane had been provided with accommodation and booked on another flight on Sunday morning, she said, and the cause of the damage was being assessed.
The incident is the latest in a series of problems suffered by Australia's troubled national airline in recent months.
On Tuesday, two Qantas jumbos were damaged when they collided on the ground at a maintenance base.
In October, a computer glitch caused a Qantas plane to plunge into a 200-metre mid-air nosedive, injuring more than 70 people, with some suffering broken bones.
In July, a Qantas Boeing 747-400 made an emergency landing in Manila after a mid-air blast caused by an exploding oxygen bottle punched a hole in the fuselage during a flight from Hong Kong to Melbourne.
Fonte: Flight Safety Information 24/11/2008.
sexta-feira, 21 de novembro de 2008
NTSB ISSUES UPDATE ON NEAR COLLISION ON ALLENTOWN RUNWAY
In its continuing investigation of a runway incursion in Allentown, Pennsylvania, involving a general aviation aircraft and a Chicago-bound regional jet airliner, the National Transportation Safety Board has developed the following factual information:
On September 19, 2008, at 7:38 p.m. EDT, a runway incursion resulted in a near-collision on runway 6 at the Lehigh Valley International Airport, Allentown, Pennsylvania. Mesa Air Shuttle flight 7138, a Canadair CRJ-700 (N506MJ) aborted takeoff at about 120 knots (138 mph), skidding around a Cessna R172K (N736GV) that had just landed and was still taxiing on the runway. The crew of the Mesa Air regional jet estimated the distance between the two aircraft as 10 feet when they passed.
The Mesa Air flight carried 56 passengers and a crew of four; the Cessna carried a pilot and two passengers. There was no damage to either aircraft and no reported injuries. The incident occurred in night meteorological conditions.
A timeline of the incident events is as follows: 7:29:28 - Cessna contacts Allentown tower while about 8 miles east of the airport.
7:33:30 - Cessna, in landing pattern for runway, is cleared to land on runway 6.
7:34:50 - Mesa Air regional jet contacts tower and reports ready for takeoff and holding short of runway 6. Controller instructs pilot to hold short of runway 6 for landing traffic.
7:36:15 - Cessna crosses threshold of runway 6 and lands.
7:36:27 - Mesa Air instructed by tower controller to taxi into position on runway 6 and hold.
7:36:36 - Tower controller asks pilot of Cessna where he intends to park. Following pilot response, controller provides taxi directions, instructing pilot to exit runway at taxiway A4.
7:37:11 - Mesa Air cleared for takeoff.
7:37:18 to 7:37:32 - Controller turns attention to an inbound aircraft and issues landing instructions.
7:37:34 - Cessna pilot informs tower controller that he had missed the A4 taxiway and asks for permission to exit at taxiway B.
7:37:42 - Controller replies, "...no delay, turn immediately," which Cessna pilot acknowledges.
7:38:16 - Mesa Air radios tower controller: "We got it, tower - we're going to need to go back to the gate."
Following the incident, both aircraft taxied to parking.
The Mesa Air crew elected to cancel the flight and have the aircraft inspected. The Cessna taxied to general aviation parking and concluded the flight.
Safety Board investigators have interviewed the pilots involved in the incident, and the air traffic controllers on duty at the time of the incident as well as the FAA tower managers.
The tire marks created by the Mesa Air regional jet as it veered around the Cessna can be seen on the left side of the centerline in the image at
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2008/images/Allentown.jpg
Fonte: NTSB Advisory 21/11/08.
On September 19, 2008, at 7:38 p.m. EDT, a runway incursion resulted in a near-collision on runway 6 at the Lehigh Valley International Airport, Allentown, Pennsylvania. Mesa Air Shuttle flight 7138, a Canadair CRJ-700 (N506MJ) aborted takeoff at about 120 knots (138 mph), skidding around a Cessna R172K (N736GV) that had just landed and was still taxiing on the runway. The crew of the Mesa Air regional jet estimated the distance between the two aircraft as 10 feet when they passed.
The Mesa Air flight carried 56 passengers and a crew of four; the Cessna carried a pilot and two passengers. There was no damage to either aircraft and no reported injuries. The incident occurred in night meteorological conditions.
A timeline of the incident events is as follows: 7:29:28 - Cessna contacts Allentown tower while about 8 miles east of the airport.
7:33:30 - Cessna, in landing pattern for runway, is cleared to land on runway 6.
7:34:50 - Mesa Air regional jet contacts tower and reports ready for takeoff and holding short of runway 6. Controller instructs pilot to hold short of runway 6 for landing traffic.
7:36:15 - Cessna crosses threshold of runway 6 and lands.
7:36:27 - Mesa Air instructed by tower controller to taxi into position on runway 6 and hold.
7:36:36 - Tower controller asks pilot of Cessna where he intends to park. Following pilot response, controller provides taxi directions, instructing pilot to exit runway at taxiway A4.
7:37:11 - Mesa Air cleared for takeoff.
7:37:18 to 7:37:32 - Controller turns attention to an inbound aircraft and issues landing instructions.
7:37:34 - Cessna pilot informs tower controller that he had missed the A4 taxiway and asks for permission to exit at taxiway B.
7:37:42 - Controller replies, "...no delay, turn immediately," which Cessna pilot acknowledges.
7:38:16 - Mesa Air radios tower controller: "We got it, tower - we're going to need to go back to the gate."
Following the incident, both aircraft taxied to parking.
The Mesa Air crew elected to cancel the flight and have the aircraft inspected. The Cessna taxied to general aviation parking and concluded the flight.
Safety Board investigators have interviewed the pilots involved in the incident, and the air traffic controllers on duty at the time of the incident as well as the FAA tower managers.
The tire marks created by the Mesa Air regional jet as it veered around the Cessna can be seen on the left side of the centerline in the image at
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2008/images/Allentown.jpg
Fonte: NTSB Advisory 21/11/08.
Airbus to certify airbags in A320s
Airbus has been granted special certification conditions from the US FAA to allow the air framer to certify inflatable airbags in the passenger restraint systems on A320 family aircraft.
The company on 2 September asked the regulator to amend its A320 type certificate to allow the installation of Am Safe Aviation inflatable restraints for head injury protection (HIP) on passenger seats on the A319, A320 and A321.
First created for the automobile industry, the aviation version of the restraint is designed to limit passenger forward motion in the event of an accident, "thus reducing the potential for head injury and head entrapment," says FAA, adding that the airbag is similar to the automobile system except that it is integrated into the passenger restraint system and inflates away from the seated passengers. Other aircraft with amended certification requirements for the seatbelts include the Boeing 777.
Airframers traditionally meet HIP requirements in certain seats by requiring either a setback 35in from any bulkhead, front seat or "other rigid interior feature" or by placing padding in the collision area. While HIP is not required as part of the certification for the A320 series today, it will be included in new regulations set to go into effect on 27 October 2009, says FAA.
To meet the amended certification requirements, FAA will require Airbus to show that the airbags "perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions" and will not become a hazard to other passengers or the aircraft. Of particular concern is that the airbags do not deploy inadvertently due to the effect of electronic noise or lightning on the sensors to trigger the pyrotechnic charge.
Other considerations include the impacts of the belts on pregnant women and children held on a passenger's lap.
Airbus says the special condition application is routine as there are no formal standards for the restraints. "Postings such as this are used simply to permit compliance with head strike protection requirements on bulkhead seats," says the company.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
The company on 2 September asked the regulator to amend its A320 type certificate to allow the installation of Am Safe Aviation inflatable restraints for head injury protection (HIP) on passenger seats on the A319, A320 and A321.
First created for the automobile industry, the aviation version of the restraint is designed to limit passenger forward motion in the event of an accident, "thus reducing the potential for head injury and head entrapment," says FAA, adding that the airbag is similar to the automobile system except that it is integrated into the passenger restraint system and inflates away from the seated passengers. Other aircraft with amended certification requirements for the seatbelts include the Boeing 777.
Airframers traditionally meet HIP requirements in certain seats by requiring either a setback 35in from any bulkhead, front seat or "other rigid interior feature" or by placing padding in the collision area. While HIP is not required as part of the certification for the A320 series today, it will be included in new regulations set to go into effect on 27 October 2009, says FAA.
To meet the amended certification requirements, FAA will require Airbus to show that the airbags "perform properly under foreseeable operating conditions" and will not become a hazard to other passengers or the aircraft. Of particular concern is that the airbags do not deploy inadvertently due to the effect of electronic noise or lightning on the sensors to trigger the pyrotechnic charge.
Other considerations include the impacts of the belts on pregnant women and children held on a passenger's lap.
Airbus says the special condition application is routine as there are no formal standards for the restraints. "Postings such as this are used simply to permit compliance with head strike protection requirements on bulkhead seats," says the company.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
FAA issues emergency AD on Boeing 737 fuel pump wiring
The FAA issued an emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) to certain owners and operators of Boeing 737-600,-700,-700C,-800, and -900 series airplanes.
Information indicates that, when the flight crew manually turns off the center wing tank (CWT) pump switches, that action turns off the right-hand pump, but re-energizes the left-hand pump due to incorrect wiring. The low-pressure lights turn off, incorrectly indicating to the flight crew that power to both pumps has been removed. The failure condition results in continual running of the left-hand fuel pump without indication to the flight crew, which could lead to localized overheating of parts inside the fuel pump, and which could produce an ignition source inside the fuel tank.
The FAA requires the operators of aircraft effected to carry out a wiring test as specified in the AD. (FAA)
Emergency AD 2008-24-51;
(aviation-safety.net)
Information indicates that, when the flight crew manually turns off the center wing tank (CWT) pump switches, that action turns off the right-hand pump, but re-energizes the left-hand pump due to incorrect wiring. The low-pressure lights turn off, incorrectly indicating to the flight crew that power to both pumps has been removed. The failure condition results in continual running of the left-hand fuel pump without indication to the flight crew, which could lead to localized overheating of parts inside the fuel pump, and which could produce an ignition source inside the fuel tank.
The FAA requires the operators of aircraft effected to carry out a wiring test as specified in the AD. (FAA)
Emergency AD 2008-24-51;
(aviation-safety.net)
Air hostess helped land passenger jet after co-pilot had 'breakdown' over the Atlantic
An air hostess helped land a jet carrying 146 passengers after the co-pilot had an apparent mental breakdown over the Atlantic Ocean, investigators revealed today.
The UK-bound plane made an emergency diversion to Shannon Airport, in Ireland, last January after the Air Canada flight officer began a ‘rambling and disjointed’ conversation, said an official report.
Another attendant suffered wrist injuries as the crew forcibly removed the co-pilot from the cockpit controls and restrained him in a seat in the cabin.
Mid-air drama: The air hostess helped out after the plane's captain asked if anyone could fly
The captain of the Boeing 767 from Toronto to Heathrow asked staff to seek out any trained pilots onboard.
One of the female cabin crew came forward saying she had a commercial pilot’s license and was asked to take over in the co-pilot’s seat.
The captain praised the attendant to investigators for helping him safely land the plane at Shannon, where the ill flight officer was removed and admitted to the acute psychiatric unit of Ennis Regional Hospital for 11 days.
He was later flown home to Canada by an air ambulance for further care, according to the investigation.
The official report into the incident by the Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) did not explicitly refer to the co-pilot’s medical condition.
But it recorded the views of two doctors onboard that he was in a ‘confused and disorientated state’.
The captain also reported that his colleague became uncharacteristically ‘belligerent and unco-operative’ and was ‘effectively incapacitated’.
One passenger at the time reported seeing the distraught co-pilot yelling for God as he was being restrained.
The AAIU praised the actions of both the captain and crew in diverting to the nearest airport and removing the co-pilot from the controls.
‘For his own well-being and the safety of the aircraft, the most appropriate course of action was to stand him down from duty and seek medical attention which was available on board,’ said the report.
‘The commander (captain) realizing he was faced with a difficult and serious situation used tact and understanding and kept control of the situation at all times.
‘The situation was dealt with in a professional manner... As such, the commander and flight attendants should be commended for their professionalism in the handling of this event.’
There were no safety recommendations from the investigation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1087523/Air-hostess-helped-land-passenger-jet-pilot-breakdown-Atlantic.html
The UK-bound plane made an emergency diversion to Shannon Airport, in Ireland, last January after the Air Canada flight officer began a ‘rambling and disjointed’ conversation, said an official report.
Another attendant suffered wrist injuries as the crew forcibly removed the co-pilot from the cockpit controls and restrained him in a seat in the cabin.
Mid-air drama: The air hostess helped out after the plane's captain asked if anyone could fly
The captain of the Boeing 767 from Toronto to Heathrow asked staff to seek out any trained pilots onboard.
One of the female cabin crew came forward saying she had a commercial pilot’s license and was asked to take over in the co-pilot’s seat.
The captain praised the attendant to investigators for helping him safely land the plane at Shannon, where the ill flight officer was removed and admitted to the acute psychiatric unit of Ennis Regional Hospital for 11 days.
He was later flown home to Canada by an air ambulance for further care, according to the investigation.
The official report into the incident by the Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) did not explicitly refer to the co-pilot’s medical condition.
But it recorded the views of two doctors onboard that he was in a ‘confused and disorientated state’.
The captain also reported that his colleague became uncharacteristically ‘belligerent and unco-operative’ and was ‘effectively incapacitated’.
One passenger at the time reported seeing the distraught co-pilot yelling for God as he was being restrained.
The AAIU praised the actions of both the captain and crew in diverting to the nearest airport and removing the co-pilot from the controls.
‘For his own well-being and the safety of the aircraft, the most appropriate course of action was to stand him down from duty and seek medical attention which was available on board,’ said the report.
‘The commander (captain) realizing he was faced with a difficult and serious situation used tact and understanding and kept control of the situation at all times.
‘The situation was dealt with in a professional manner... As such, the commander and flight attendants should be commended for their professionalism in the handling of this event.’
There were no safety recommendations from the investigation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1087523/Air-hostess-helped-land-passenger-jet-pilot-breakdown-Atlantic.html
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)