Aircraft for Trump’s running mate skids off LaGuardia runway.
Aircraft for Trump’s running mate skids off LaGuardia runway. A Boeing 737-700 carrying the running mate of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump skidded off a wet runway after landing at LaGuardia Airport in New York late on 27 October.
The Eastern Airlines-operated charter flight came to a stop on the grass beyond the runway, according to local reports.
Immediately after the incident, LaGuardia confirmed all air traffic was suspended “due to an airport emergency.” Aircraft have subsequently started using runway 13.
Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate and the governor of Indiana, and his traveling entourage were unharmed in the incident, news reports say.
Live video at the scene suggests the aircraft was stopped by an engineered material arrestor system, which is designed to stop aircraft moving up to 80mph after exiting a runway.
The 737-700 involved in the incident is registered as N278EA. The 18-year-old aircraft is owned by Willis Lease Finance. It is one of five aircraft operated by Miami-based Eastern Airlines, but the only 737-700. The other four are 737-800s.
None of the 48 people on board were injured in the rough landing, which occurred on a rainy Thursday evening in the city. The press pool in the back of the aircraft, a Boeing 737-700 chartered from Eastern Airlines that was painted with the campaign’s logo, could feel the plane fishtailing as it touched down and sliding off the runway before coming to a very sharp halt in the grass off the side of the runway.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/
CNN
Read MoreSerious Runway Incursion – China
Serious Runway Incursion – China
Fifteen Chinese air traffic controllers were punished by authorities for their involvement in a serious runway incursion incident at Shanghai-Hongqiao Airport last week.
On October 10, 2016 China Eastern Airlines flight MU5643, an Airbus A320, was involved in a serious runway incursion incident during takeoff from Shanghai-Hongqiao Airport, China.
The aircraft was cleared for takeoff from runway 36L for a domestic flight to Tianjin. As it was accellerating down the runway, an Airbus A330 entered the active runway via taxiway B3. The China Eastern Airbus A330-343 had landed on runway 36R after a flight from Beijing (MU5106). The flight was then cleared to taxy to the terminal.
It left the runway via B3, crossed taxiway Bravo and entered the active departure runway via taxiway H3. This crossing is located 2110 meters from the threshold of runway 36L and 2400 m from the point where the A320 commenced takeoff.
The A320 was accelerating through 110 knots when the crew noted the A330 entering the runway. The crew selected TOGA thrust and continued their takeoff. The aircraft rotated at about 130 knots and climbed over the A330 with a separation of just 19 m.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) stated that air traffic controllers at Hongqiao Airport had issued clearances to both aircraft, causing the conflict.
The licenses of the controllers manning the commanding and monitoring positions were revoked, in one of the cases for life. Thirteen officials with the East China Air Traffic Management Bureau as well as the bureau’s air traffic control center and safety management department were either given Party warnings, serious warnings, had demerits recorded or faced losing their positions, the CAAC stated.
The captain of the A320 on the other hand was granted a ‘first-class merit,’ along with other rewards.
http://news.aviation-safety.net/
Hongqiao Airport and the incident aircraft routes
Read MoreOctober 21st – A300B4 Runway Excursion Brazil
October 21st – A300B4 Runway Excursion Brazil. Sterna Cargo flight 9302, an Airbus A300B4-203F, suffered a landing incident at Recife-Guararapes International Airport, Brazil. The aircraft apparently came to rest off the runway with the nose resting on the ground. It’s unclear if the nose landing gear had collapsed or if it had failed to extend.
https://aviation-safety.net/
Robot Pilots To Fly Passenger and Cargo Planes.
Robot Pilots To Fly Passenger and Cargo Planes. The US government and industry are collaborating on a program that seeks to replace the second human pilot in two-person flight crews with a robot co-pilot that never tires, gets bored, feels stressed out or gets distracted.
The program is funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Pentagon’s arm for development of emerging technologies, and run by Aurora Flight Sciences, a private contractor. With both the military and airlines struggling with shortages of trained pilots, officials say they see an advantage to reducing the number of pilots required to fly large aircraft while at the same time increasing safety and efficiency by having a robot pick up the mundane tasks of flying.
The idea is to have the robot free the human pilot, especially in emergencies and demanding situations, to think strategically.
“It’s really about a spectrum of increasing autonomy and how humans and robots work together so that each can be doing the thing that it’s best at,” said John Langford, Aurora’s chairman and CEO.
Langford even envisions a day when a single pilot on the ground will control multiple airliners in the skies, and people will go about their daily travels in self-flying planes.
At a demonstration of the technology at a small airport in Manassas, Virginia, on Monday, a robot with spindly metal tubes and rods for arms and legs and a claw hand grasping the throttle was in the right seat of a single-engine Cessna Caravan. In the left seat, a human pilot tapped commands to his mute colleague on an electronic tablet. The robot did the flying.
This program, known as Aircrew Labor In-Cockpit Automation System, or ALIAS, goes steps further (than current autopilots). For example, an array of cameras allows the robot to see all the cockpit instruments and read the gauges. It can recognize whether switches are in the on or off position, and can flip them to the desired position. And it learns not only from its experience flying the plane, but also from the entire history of flight in that type of plane.
The ALIAS robot “can do everything a human can do” except look out the window, Langford said. Give the program time and maybe the robot can do that, too, he said.
In other ways, the robot is better than the human pilot, reacting faster and instantaneously calling up every emergency checklist for a possible situation, officials said.
In some ways, it will be like flying with a “co-pilot genius,” Langford said. “The robot carries in them the DNA of every flight hour in that (aircraft) system, every accident,” he said. “It’s like having a human pilot with 600,000 hours of experience.”
The robot is designed to be a “drop-in” technology, ready for use in any plane or helicopter, even 1950s vintage aircraft built before electronics.
But the robot faces a lot of hurdles before it’s ready to start replacing human pilots, not the least of which is that it would require a massive rewrite of Federal Aviation Administration safety regulations. Even small changes to FAA regulations often take years.
Elements of the ALIAS technology could be adopted within the next five years, officials said, much the way automakers are gradually adding automated safety features that are the building blocks of self-driving technology. Dan Patt, DARPA’s ALIAS program manager, said replacing human pilots with robots is still a couple of decades away, but Langford said he believes the transition will happen sooner than that.
Pilot unions are skeptical that robots can replace humans. Keith Hagy, the Air Line Pilots Association’s director of engineering and safety, pointed to instances of multiple system failures during flights where only the heroic efforts of improvising pilots saved lives.
In 2010, for example, an engine on a jumbo Qantas airliner with 469 people on board blew up, firing shrapnel that damaged other critical aircraft systems and the plane’s landing gear. The plane’s overloaded flight management system responded with a cascading series of emergency messages for which there was no time to respond. By chance, there were five experienced pilots on board – including three captains – who, working together, were able to land the plane. But it was a close call.
“Those are the kind of abnormal situations when you really need a pilot on board with that judgment and experience and to make decisions,” Hagy said. “A robot just isn’t going to have that kind of capability.”
By Joan Lowy, Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/
Mismanaged Approach Caused Charter Plane Crash
Mismanaged Approach Caused Charter Plane Crash. The National Transportation Safety Board determined Tuesday that the flight crew’s mismanagement of the approach and multiple deviations from standard operating procedures caused the Nov. 10, 2015, crash of a Part 135 on-demand charter flight in Akron, Ohio. The charter company’s casual attitude toward compliance with standards was a contributing factor in the accident.
Execuflight flight 1526, en route to Akron Fulton International Airport, was on a non-precision approach and descended below the minimum descent altitude, even though the pilots did not have the runway in sight. When the first officer attempted to arrest the descent, the airplane, a British Aerospace HS 125-700A (Hawker 700A), entered an aerodynamic stall and crashed into a four-unit apartment building, killing all nine persons on board the airplane. There were no fatalities on the ground.
“Execuflight’s casual attitude toward safety likely led its pilots to believe that strict adherence to standard operating procedures was not required,” said NTSB Chairman Christopher A. Hart. “Following standard operating procedures is critical to flight safety. Adhering to these procedures could have prevented this accident and saved lives.”
The NTSB investigation revealed that the crew deviated from numerous standard operating procedures. For example, contrary to the company’s practice of having the captain fly the airplane with revenue passengers on board, the first officer was flying, and the captain was monitoring. Also, the captain’s approach briefing was unstructured, inconsistent, and incomplete, and, as a result, the flight crew had no shared understanding of how the approach was to be conducted.
When it became apparent that the approach was unstabilized, the captain, who was ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight, did not take control of the airplane or call for a missed approach.
Based upon the findings from the NTSB’s investigation of this accident, the Board issued nine safety recommendations to the Federal Aviation Administration, two to Textron Aviation, and two to Hawker 700- and 800-series training centers. These recommendations include requiring flight data monitoring and safety management systems for Part 135 operators and improving pilot training on non-precision approaches.
www.ntsb.gov
Citation runway excursion at Smithfield (Rhode Island)
Citation runway excursion at Smithfield airport (Rhode Island). SMITHFIELD, R.I. (WPRI) – An investigation is underway after a small corporate jet left the runway and crashed after landing at North Central State Airport in Smithfield.
The Cessna Citation jet was flying from Pennsylvania to Rhode Island on business and landed at North Central at about 10:30 a.m., according to an airport official.
“The pilot in command was able to keep control of the aircraft and stopped it before it went too far,” said James Warcup from the Rhode Island Airport Corporation.
Emergency crews responded to the scene and doused the jet with water as a precaution.
The official said six people were on board: a pilot, co-pilot, and four passengers. There were no injuries.
According to the field condition report obtained by Eyewitness News, the runways at North Central were dry but the weather conditions were listed as cloudy with ground fog.
The airport official said it’s too early in the investigation to determine if a mechanical or human error led to the crash, though the pilot is experienced they say.
Representatives from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were heading to the scene Thursday to investigate.
Passengers on board were able to make it to their business meeting in Providence but the plane will be slowly removed from the scene over the next couple of days.
http://wpri.com/
EASA lifts flight ban on Super Puma helicopters.
EASA lifts flight ban on Super Puma helicopters. European safety regulators have lifted the grounding order on Airbus Helicopters Super Puma rotorcraft imposed in the wake of a fatal crash earlier this year, but separate flight bans in the UK and Norway remain in force.
A total of 13 passengers and crew died when the main rotor separated from the rest of a H225 helicopter (LN-OJF) near Turøy on Norway’s west coast on 29 April.
A subsequent report issued on 1 June by Norway’s SHT air accident investigation agency narrowed the cause to the disintegration of the second-stage planet gear in the main gearbox epicyclic module. It blamed this on a fatigue crack initiated by spalling – the disintegration of a bearing surface.
In a response the following day, the European Aviation Safety Agency said it had decided “as an additional precautionary measure” to “temporarily ground the fleet” by prohibiting flights of all civil H225 and AS332 L2 helicopters.
EASA says that although the “root cause of this failure is still not fully understood” by Airbus Helicopters, it is confident that with a number of steps put in place by the manufacturer, the Super Puma is now safe to return to service.
Key among these is the replacement of one of the two configurations of planet gear. A review of in-service data showed that “one configuration has higher operating stress levels that result[s] in more frequent events of spalling… while the other exhibits better reliability behaviour,” says EASA.
The two designs are made by separate manufacturers. Airbus Helicopters has not revealed which supplier’s product has proved less reliable, but stresses that both were designed to its specifications.
EASA says that by limiting the gear configuration to the more reliable version, plus reducing inspections of the particle chip detector and main gearbox oil filters to intervals of 10 flight hours, “an acceptable level of safety can be restored”.
In addition, it has reduced the service life of the remaining planet gear design, as well as mandating the replacement of the part if it has been involved in an unusual event such as a lightning strike or road accident during transit.
SHT had noted that the main gearbox fitted to the ill-fated H225 had been involved in an incident during transportation, but had not identified a positive link with the Turøy crash.
However, the flight restrictions imposed by the regulators in both Norway and the UK are still in place.
The UK Civil Aviation Authority says it is “united in [its] approach” with its Norwegian counterpart. “Both agencies now await further information from the accident investigation before considering any future action,” it says.
Airbus Helicopters adds: “We are providing assistance to our customers and working with related stakeholders in order to help them return their aircraft to service at the appropriate time.
“Meanwhile, we maintain our full support to the AIBN in the frame of the ongoing investigation.”
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/
Virgin Australia flight attendant thrown onto galley floor
Virgin Australia flight attendant thrown onto galley floor. A Virgin Australia flight attendant was thrown onto the galley floor of a Boeing 737 passenger jet after the plane’s pilots attempted to stop it from flying too fast on approach to Adelaide Airport last year.
The flight attendant suffered a knee injury and another cabin crew member also lost her footing in the rear galley of the plane, which was carrying 83 passengers from Sydney, during the mid-air incident on May 9.
Air-safety investigators have detailed how the plane’s pilots had decided to tell the cabin crew to prepare for landing earlier than usual to reduce the risk of injury from turbulence as they prepared to encounter strong westerly winds near Adelaide.
Shortly afterwards, the pilots changed their planned speed from 280 to 320 knots following a request from air-traffic control for a high-speed descent into Adelaide.
But as the plane passed below 10,000 feet, the air speed began to increase above 320 knots and at 8400 feet a “drag-required” message displayed on the cockpit computer.
In response, the first officer extended the plane’s speed brake. Despite this, the passenger jet’s air speed continued to increase.
To avoid a so-called overspeed, the first officer pulled back forcibly on the control column to raise the nose of the plane, overriding the autopilot and activating the control-wheel steering.
Seconds later, the pilot abruptly released the back pressure on the control column.
At about the same time, the flight attendants had almost finished securing the cabin and were about to take their seats.
They then felt what seemed to be turbulence, and the two flight attendants in the rear galley lost their footing, one of them falling heavily on the floor.
A final report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, released on Friday, found the pilots had not adequately considered the greater risk of a so-called overspeed of the plane in changing wind conditions.
Air-safety investigators also found that the flight crew were yet to complete the airline’s training that focused on managing incidents in which planes fly too fast.
“This increased the risk that the guidance provided through other sources would not be followed correctly,” the report said.
The investigators noted that the plane’s cabin crew had fortunately begun preparing for landing early than usual, which was likely to have prevented more serious injury.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/
Low-flying Jet flight: Pilots erred in calculating take-off parameters
Low-flying Jet flight: Pilots erred in calculating take-off parameters.
An initial probe into the reported ‘unsafely’ low take-off by a Jet Airways aircraft from London Heathrow on August 30 has revealed that the pilots based their take off calculations like speed and thrust on the full length of the runway. This despite the fact that the full length of the runway was not available and only a part of the runway was there for take off that day. This critical error meant that the pilots reportedly erred on both the take-off speed and thrust, endangering the safety of the Mumbai-bound aircraft and people on board.
“Due to this serious calculation error by the pilots, the plane did not achieve the desired height after getting airborne. The Boeing 777 had an altitude of just 120 feet when it was over the airport boundary wall. And before that, at a point it had an altitude of 35 feet on two engines – while that is the altitude that is achieved by a single-engine jet,” said a senior official of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA).
The regulator has since grounded both the pilots. “The pilots did not inform the airline about this unsafe altitude take off. People living near Heathrow complained to the local authorities, who then told London aviation authorities. They, in turn, told our aviation agencies,” said the official. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) is probing this case.
A statement by Jet Airways said: “The subject incident did not have any damage to aircraft or property, nor injuries to crew members or guests on board. We are investigating the event that has been brought to our attention, as part of our active safety management system. At Jet Airways, safety of its guests, crew and assets is of paramount importance.”
The wide body aircraft took off without using the full length of runway available to it, technically called an intersection take off. Once air borne, the plane reportedly did not climb to the required height and passed very close over the airport boundary wall and traffic on the road beyond the wall.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
CRMT Assessment for Wiltshire Air Ambulance
CRM Trainer Assessment for Wiltshire Air Ambulance CRM Trainer. An ITS CRMT Examiner completed an assessment on a CRM Trainer at Wiltshire Air Ambulance in Devizes. The CRM Trainer delivered a recurrent CRM course to a mixed class of pilots and paramedics. It was a most successful course and the CRM Trainer passed the assessment with flying colours. The course addressed a range of issues relevant to the different crew and roles of personnel on the course.
In addition to undertaking assessments on new CRM Trainers, or existing CRM Trainers applying for renewal, ITS also deliver CRMT Examiner courses.
For information about the ITS CRM Examiner course click –
Read More
