The Department of Transportation Inspector General has determined that the FAA is not adequately fulfilling its responsibility for overseeing U.S. and foreign aviation repair stations. In a report released on May 1, 2013 the DOT OIG concluded that the FAA did not ensure that maintenance work done at repair stations met FAA standards. The repair stations that were the subject of the report were generally ones that performed contract maintenance for commercial airlines.

Specifically, the report stated that the FAA does not adequately allocate its oversight manpower to those repair stations that pose the greatest risk to safety. The report further noted that FAA does not use a risk assessment tools at all on foreign repair stations that work on U.S. commercial aircraft. The report contained several other specific examples of shortcomings, but the general conclusion was that the “FAA’s oversight of foreign and domestic repair stations lacks the rigor needed to identify deficiencies and verify that they have been addressed.”

Although the FAA and various aviation commenters have down played the report, the DOT’s findings are concerning. Because of limited FAA manpower, repair stations generally police themselves. In this author’s experience, the oversight that is provided is often limited to review of paperwork and does not drill down into the day-to-day practices and procedures. Since repair stations are businesses, their first focus is naturally going to be on profits. If there is not adequate oversight, the possibility of putting profits ahead of safety is very real. Hopefully, the FAA will take to heart the DOT’s recommendations on how to fix this problem to ensure that commercial aviation remains safe for the flying public.

A pdf of the full DOT report is below:

FAA Repair Station Oversight^5-1-13

Continental Motors has decided to increase the time between engine overhauls (“TBO”) by 200 or 400 hours on certain newer engine models. In a revision to Service Information Letter SIL98-9B, dated April 8, 2013, the company set forth its specific guidelines regarding the increased TBOs. Generally, however, the new limits will extend to certain engines manufactured beginning in February 2012 and with serial numbers of 1006000 or higher.

You can view the full version of SIL98-9B by clicking the document below.

SIL98-9B[1]

In February 2012, I wrote about an Australian crash that killed two film makers sparking a debate about the safety of Robinson helicopters. Now, another crash in March of this year has added fuel to the fire (so to speak) and is prompting the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (“CASA”) to take more tangible measures.

Four retired scientists were killed when the Robinson R44 helicopter in which they were flying clipped a tree and burst into flames upon impact with the ground. The helicopter was equipped with an aluminum fuel tank, which is known to be a potential fire hazard. Robinson makes a newer bladder-style fuel tank that can be retro-fitted onto its helicopters and which significantly improves safety.

In response to the March 2013 crash and the fact that Robinson helicopters seem to have a much higher post-impact fire rate than other helicopters of similar size, CASA is now warning Australian R44 operators that their helicopters will be grounded at the end of April unless they outfit them with the safer fuel tank.

This issue is not specific to Australia, of course, as Robinson helicopters are flown worldwide. Australia, however, seems to be much more proactive than other countries when it comes to aviation safety. This is a lesson that U.S. aviation authorities would do well to learn.

If you have been involved in an aviation accident or know someone who has, feel free to call William Angelley at (214) 580-9800 or email me at wil@hightangel.com. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

On March 22, 2013, the FAA released its final airport control tower closure list. The final list was pared down to 149 contract towers, instead of the 189 originally proposed. The agency decided to spare 24 towers because it was decided that their closure would adversely affect the national interest. Additionally, 16 towers will remain open under a cost-sharing program. Some communities will work to keep their towers open without federal funds, but most will be closed starting on April 7, when a four-week phase out begins.

The lists of closed towers and those that will remain open can be viewed below:

Closed Towers

Towers to Remain Open

Cost Share Towers

The FAA has stated that it will publish its final list of control tower closures on Friday, March 22, 2013. The forced government spending cuts that began earlier this year has among its casualties 189 of the nation’s 251 contract control towers. The towers targeted for closure are generally at small and medium sized airports. The FAA has stated that 173 such towers will be shut down on April 7, 2013 and another 16 will close on September 30, 2013.

This move has caused great concern among many of the country’s smaller communities, especially those such as Texarkana, AR, Topeka, KS, Klamath Falls, OR and Waco, TX, whose airports presently support commercial and/or military operations. Although the affected airports will not be shut down, the tower closures certainly pose risks to safety and economic well-being in such areas.

Specifically, pilots taking off and landing at these airports will be totally responsible for their own traffic observations and will not have any close in radar support. Additionally, the work load for nearby air traffic controllers at other locations will no doubt increase significantly. And, commercial and military operations at these airports may well stop altogether.

Texas stands to lose as many as 19 control towers across the state in locations such as, Waco, Brownsville, College Station, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio. The FAA has stated that it will consider removing certain towers from the list if an effective case can be made that its closing will significantly impact the nation’s interests. However, given the fact that the FAA’s budget for contract towers is being slashed by 75%, it is unlikely that many, if any, of the towers on the list will be spared.

If you have a question about aviation or aviation law, please feel free to contact William Angelley at (214) 580-9800.

It appears that the Boeing 787 “Dreamliners” may not be so dreamy. The Federal Aviation Administration grounded U.S. registered 787’s for precautionary inspection, and authorities in other countries quickly followed suit. Why were the planed pulled out of circulation?

For one, a Japanese Airlines 787 apparently caught fire while sitting on the tarmac at Boston Logan Airport on January 7, 2013. After that, an All Nippon Airways flight made an emergency landing on January 16, after its battery caught fire. The believed problem appears to stem from a lithium ion battery. The danger of fire on board an airline is obvious, regardless of the cause. A fire that spreads to the electrical system can bring down a plane in flight.

It appears now that the recent fire in a Japan Airlines 787 did not result from an overcharge of the battery. Nonetheless, it is still possible that the problem in that plane resulted from a charging problem with the battery. In both cases, the batteries reportedly short-circuited from a thermal overrun. The one million dollar question is why.

The impact within the United States is likely minimal. United Airlines is the only airlines to use the 787, with six planes reportedly in service. But, safety should always come first in aviation, especially in commercial aviation, and something so basic should have been caught long before such an expensive platform was introduced into service.

A recent Southwest Airlines flight en route from Kansas City to Dallas lost cabin pressure at 35,000 feet, with about 135 people on board. The oxygen masks were deployed and the plane rapidly descended. According to news reports, a passenger stated that the plane went into a sudden, steep dive. The oxygen masks were needed for around twenty minutes, and the plane ultimately landed safely. Without cabin pressurization, oxygen masks are necessary above 10,000 feet.

What is cabin pressurization, why it is necessary, and what types of injuries can result from the sudden loss of it at high altitude? The passenger cabins of commercial airliners are pressurized using air generated by the engines. The compressed air is pumped into the airplane’s cabin to maintain a comfortable – not to mention safe – environment for the passengers and crew. It is required because the air at high altitudes is thin, cold and does not contain enough oxygen for humans to breathe.

A pressurized cabin has been described as a leaking balloon that is being constantly inflated. Without it, passengers would suffer from hypoxia and would quickly lose consciousness. Even mild hypoxia can be fatal if not handled properly.

Cabin pressurization is a critical component to safe flight. Luckily, in the recent case of the Southwest Airlines flight, the pilot was able to land the plane safely. Whether and how passengers were impacted by this incident remains an open question. Southwest removed the plane from service after the incident for inspection and/or maintenance, but it has since been returned to flights. The cause of the loss of pressure in this case has not yet been made public.

If you have any questions about this flight or any other aviation law issue, please contact William Angelley at (214) 580-9800.

Eleven years ago today, November 12, 2001, American Airlines Flight 587 crashed shortly after taking off from JFK International Airport in Queens, New York, killing all 260 people on board and 5 others on the ground. The aircraft involved was an Airbus A300-B4-605R.

One of the central questions in the subsequent investigation was whether the flight crew applied excessive rudder pedal input following an encounter with wake turbulence from another aircraft. Many in the aviation industry criticized the pilot training program at American Airlines for not adequately teaching pilots the physical limits of the Airbus A300 rudder system. Others, however, blamed the aircraft’s design, stating that the rudder system should be able to prevent a pilot from making such dramatic inputs so as to threaten the structural integrity of the aircraft.

In a testament to the exceedingly slow pace of safety improvements in this country, the FAA, on November 9, 2012 (eleven years after the AA 587 crash) published a new Airworthiness Directive aimed right at the Airbus A300 rudder system design. The AD states that it “was prompted by events of excessive rudder pedal inputs and consequent high loads on the vertical stabilizer on several airplanes.”

The AD, which is no doubt opposed by many due to its high cost of compliance, requires a design change to the existing A300 rudder control system to include, for example, a rudder pedal input damper or the installation of a warning system telling pilots to stop further rudder pedal input.

This author has always fallen into the camp of those who wondered how a large commercial aircraft’s design could allow a pilot to literally rip the tail off of the airplane by stepping on the rudder pedal too quickly. It appears that the FAA had the same question and is now, albeit very belatedly, taking action.

If you have any questions about commercial or general aviation safety, please call William Angelley at (214) 580-9800.

Just when the flying public thinks it can’t get any worse, it does.  American Airlines has recently seen an uptick – a large one – in flight delays and cancellations.   This is reportedly attributable to an unusually high number of maintenance requests and sick pilots.  The pilots’ union says there is nothing organized going on.  And we are starting back into the flu and cold season.  But really, is that it?

Probably not.  American Airlines is in the middle of a quagmire following its bankruptcy filing.  Its relations with the pilots’ union, on the public face of things, have not been positive.   Who pays the price?  The flying public does.  Maybe not in your airfare (yet) but in other ways – in the costs you incur when you don’t make a meeting or you get stuck somewhere you don’t intend to be or you miss another night with your family.

Someone I know told me the story of his recent experience with American Airlines.  He spilled some water in his seat when he put his plastic bottle down to place his carry on in the overhead bin.  He asked the flight attendant for some plastic or something to put in the seat to avoid wet pants.  The flight attendant said that she would do what she could, but added that if the Captain were notified of the water spill it would result in a minimum three-hour delay while a new seat was brought out and installed.  True story.  Such are the circumstances right now at American Airlines.   Are these the types of “maintenance requests” that are causing the increased delays and cancellations?  It is no wonder that this company is in bankruptcy.

When a plane crashed into the crowd at last year’s Reno Air show eleven people were killed, including the pilot of the plane involved, and over 70 were injured. The disaster naturally raised questions concerning the cause of the crash and the safety of spectators at similar events.

The National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) released its preliminary report last week. Although the investigation is ongoing, the NTSB is focusing on loose screws on the elevator trim that helps control the plane. It was clear at the time of the accident that part of the elevator trim broke off the plane. The elevator is the hinged portion of the horizontal stabilizer, and it controls the plane’s pitch (or up and down motion).

Inspectors noted during the pre-show inspections that screws on the right elevator trim were too short. The problems that can result when a screw doesn’t sufficiently feed through a bolt are obvious, particularly in a part under such stress. The plane was traveling over 500 mph at the time of the crash.

This weakness should have been corrected before the plane was permitted to take off at the air show. It wasn’t. And, apparently there were not any required follow up inspections done or other procedures in place to ensure that the deficiencies were actually remedied before the show.

Hopefully, the lessons learned from this tragedy will result in more stringent participation and inspection standards for all air shows.

If you have any questions about this or any other aviation issue, please contact William Angelley at (214) 580-9800.