9.2 Weather Hazards

9.2 Weather Hazards

There are many weather hazard that cause great risk to aircraft. One that I believe is a great risk, is flying in icing conditions. I find this to be a great threat because it can sneak up on you and you may not even realize your leading edges are accumulating ice. It will change a smooth airflow surface and increase drag. In turn, it will decrease lift and add additional weight. (Landsberg, 2008)

Along with adding additional weight and drag to an aircraft, when icing occurs on an aircraft, especially on an aircraft that do not have an operational anti-icing or deicing system, it can block air inlets that are a part of the pitot and static systems. In turn it can cause erroneous indications on the instruments which could also be catastrophic. (Skybrary, 2019)

Water typically freezes at zero degrees Celsius. However in the atmosphere it will sometimes still exist in liquid form, even well below zero degrees. This is called a “super-cooled” liquid. As an aircraft gains altitude and flies through the air, the structure of the aircraft cools, making the aircraft structure at or below zero degrees as well. As the “super-cooled” liquid hits the aircraft, it immediately will turned to ice. (Skybrary, 2019) There are 3 types of icing. Rime Ice, which is when small “super cooled" droplets freeze rapidly when they contact the aircraft freezing surface. Clear Ice, which is when larger “super cooled” droplets hit the subzero surface, but only a portion freezes. Cloudy or Mixed Ice is a combination of Rime and Clear Ice. (Skybrary, 2019)

A way to handle icing, is to prepare for it. Proper flight planning and verifying that you have the proper, working equipment is the best way to manage aircraft in known icing conditions.

References:

Landsberg, Bruce. (2008) AOPA Air Safety Foundation. Safety Advisor: Aircraft Icing [PDF file]. Retrieved from https://www.aopa.org/-/media/Files/AOPA/Home/Pilot-Resources/ASI/Safety-Advisors/sa11.pdf   

Skybrary. (2019, March 31). In-Flight Icing. Retrieved from https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/In-Flight_Icing

8.2 Air Traffic Control Entities

On any given day there are about 50,000 aircraft flying through the skies. That is about 5,000 aircraft in the sky every hour. Keeping all of these aircraft from certain catastrophic collisions are Air Traffic Controllers. Air Traffic Controllers direct aircraft movement to keep them safe. (Freudenrich) Usually when you think about Air Traffic Controllers you imagine them sitting high up in the tower at airports.  That is not always the case. The Tower manages departures and landings as well as ground maneuvers to and from the gates as well as to and from the runways, but most controllers cannot physically see the aircraft. (Navair)

Approach and Departure Controllers, or Area Control, are typically located in the lower level of the tower. They will take over control of the aircraft from the tower after the aircraft departs. They will also take control from Air Traffic Control – Center for arrivals. Much like Area Controllers, Air Traffic Control Center, cannot physically see the aircraft either. There are 21 zones divided up throughout the United States that are labeled as “Center”. Center will watch the movement of the aircraft throughout the zones and will pass aircraft from zone to zone as the aircraft passes through the airspace. Each aircraft is typically monitored by one or more air traffic controller from center. As the aircraft closes in on their destination, center will then pass the aircraft to the area controller, who will then assist them with the final approach information for landing and pass them back to tower. (Freudenrich)  

References:

Freudenrich, Craig. How Stuff Works. How Air Traffic Control Works. Retrieved from https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/air-traffic-control.htm

Naviair. Basic information. Retrieved from http://www.naviair.dk/air-traffic-control.1236.aspx

Module 7.2 The Airport and the Environment

7.2 The Airport and the Environment

Drones are starting to fill our skies more and more. With more drones, comes more stories in the news about aircraft/drone near misses as well as even a couple of hits. What happens when a drone actually does hit an aircraft, or worse, gets injected in to an engine. We all know what happened to US Airways Flight 1549 after the engines ingested a flock of geese. Captain Chesley Sullenberger “Sully” landed it on the Hudson and became an instant hero. (Peterson, 2019) Birds we can’t control, but drones are controlled by humans, we should be able to keep them under control, right?

The FAA has started to set up regulations around “recreational drone flying”. Several rules and requirements are already in place, including registration of your drone. The FAA even plans to have an aeronautical knowledge and safety test that drone operators will need to take and pass. They will also need to carry proof that they passed the test as well as proof of registration with them, when flying their drone. The best way to make sure that people are following these laws is to work together. Much like laser pointers, aircraft operators are going to have to work together and report what they see. There are rules in place to keep drones out of controlled airspace and violators need to be penalized. However they can only be penalized if they are caught. (FAA, 2019)

This is footage of a drone being flown over Hollywood Florida, almost hitting a helicopter. Posted by DroneDJ (2018, August 17) Near-miss video shows risk of flying drones in busy airspace as helicopter suddenly appears. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwIBEgrQnmA

Peterson, Barbara (2019, January 15). The 'Miracle on the Hudson' Flight: 8 Things You Might Not Know, a Decade Later. Retrieved from https://www.cntraveler.com/story/the-miracle-on-the-hudson-flight-things-you-might-not-know

Federal Aviation Administration. (2019, July 22). Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations. Retrieved from. https://www.faa.gov/uas/recreational_fliers/

Module 6.2 Legislative Acts: GARA Act of 1994

S.1458 - General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994

General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) became part of public law August 17, 1994. The bill was introduced by Senator Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas and signed in to law by President Bill Clinton. The purpose of the bill was to set a statute of limitations on civil actions taken against aircraft manufacturers, as well as parts manufacturers. It would have a “Limitation period” of 18 years after manufacture of the aircraft or parts to bring civil action if the aircraft is involved in an accident. It also limits to aircraft that can seat fewer than 20 passengers.

 At the time the bill was written, most general aviation aircraft were more than 18 years old. With this bill, some aircraft manufacturers would not be liable for most of the aircraft that they had produced.  Therefore, anyone injured in an aircraft that was 18 years or older, and was limited to no more than 20 passenger seats, would not have a legal case against the manufacturer, even in the case of defect. Passengers on aircraft that are flying for hire in a scheduled or routine flight are still able to bring legal action against manufacturers. (2010, Danko)

One argument for this law was that aircraft were being modified multiple times and on the third or more owner at the time of the accident. Another was that the manufacturers would be inundating the market with more piston aircraft at a more reasonable price. However, after the bill was passed, most manufacturers did not increase production on pistons, instead they started manufacturing turbine aircraft. Turbine aircraft are manufactured at a much slower pace than piston aircraft and were a lot more profitable. According to Mike Danko with Aviation Law monitor by 2025 the average aircraft will be 50 years old.

I believe that with Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) equipment mandate that takes effect January 1, 2020, there will be a number of aircraft owners that will not want to spend the money on an expensive avionics package for an older aircraft. We may see several older aircraft drop out of service.

S.1458 - General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/senate-bill/1458

Danko, Mike. (2010, April 27). Aviation Law Monitor. GARA Covers an Increasing Percentage of the General Aviation Fleet. Retrieved from https://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/tags/gara/

Module 5.3 Team-Based Human Factors Challenges

According to the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) website, “Human factors is the study of the relationships between people and their activities through the systemic application of the human sciences, integrated within the framework of system engineering. Within the context of aviation, that study includes the interactions among aviation personnel, their environments, and equipment.” The most important relationship during flight is that between the pilot, copilot and air traffic control (ATC).

If you watched the documentary video “Crash of the Century” about the accident between two Boeing 747 airliners at Tenerife airport, it shows how the relationship between the pilot, copilot and air traffic control played a large role in the final outcome. There were so many coincidences that led to the accident. A few of the problems really started with the attitude of the pilot from the KLM flight and his relationship with his copilot and his flight engineer. His egotism escalated throughout the course of the original flight. The relocation to Los Rodeos Airport just added to the hostility that the pilot already had and it carried through all the way up to the accident. Had he not been so arrogant and impatient with his team in the cockpit throughout the day, maybe the copilot or the flight engineer would have been more persistent about stopping the pilot from continuing through with takeoff, especially since they did not have clearance from ATC to do so. (Smith, 2017)

The challenge in the scenario is that a highly experienced and well decorated pilot, was not working as a team with the rest of his crew and with the air traffic controllers, who happened to be very short staffed that Sunday. The lack of communication and lack of teamwork played a huge role in the consequences for everyone.  

National Business Aviation Association. Human Factors. Retrieved from https://nbaa.org/aircraft-operations/safety/human-factors/

Smith, Patrick. (2017, March 27). The Telegraph. The true story behind the deadliest air disaster of all time. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/tenerife-airport-disaster/

Module 4.3 Aviation Security

As we all know, there are many threats to Aviation. I remember the days of walking up and standing at the gate to watch loved ones come off the aircraft.  Customer service and comfort were of the utmost importance. Now we can’t even get near the gates without having a ticket, or an escort pass, you always have to go through security and forget about comfort. Over the last 30 years, commercial flying has changed dramatically.

Life in Aviation forever changed on September 11, 2001, as we all watched 4 aircraft crash, and thousands die at the hands of 19 terrorists. In November 2001 the Aviation and Transportation Security Act was signed in to law by President George H.W. Bush, and the Aviation Security Administration (TSA) was created to manage all forms of transportation. (TSA, 2017) As the years have gone by, the TSA has changed and adapted to the many terrorists who have tried to continue to cause devastation. Such as the shoe bomber, in December 2001. The terrorists who plotted to use liquid explosives on at least 10 flights, in August 2006. And my favorite the Underwear Bomber in December 2009. All of these have led to more and more security measures, such as removing our shoes, limiting our liquids to 3.4 oz. and advanced Imaging machines. (TSA, 2017)

Even with the constant change to security, we will continue to have new threats. One threat that is hard to detect is an insider threat. From the people who scan the luggage to the pilots, how do we really know who has bad intentions. In March 2015, Andreas Lubitz intentionally crashed Germanwings Flight 9525 in to the French Alps killing all 150 souls on board. (Levs, 2015). Crew vetting, behavior detection, intelligence and passengers are our best defense against cases like this.

Crew vetting would help eliminate prospective pilots or other crew members from ever being hired. Behavior detection could help bring attention to someone who acts or seems suspicious, this could even be someone who is just acting out of their norm. These combined with Intelligence, which would watch for patterns, such as internet searches, phone conversations and even places traveled to. Last but certainly not least, passengers. Because even as a passenger, you can notice something out of the ordinary. It takes all of us to remain aware of what is going on to help prevent Aviation threats and help TSA do their job.

Transportation Safety Administration. (2017). Timeline. Retrieved from https://www.tsa.gov/timeline

Levs, Smith-Spark &Yan (2015, March 26) Germanwings Flight 9525 co-pilot deliberately crashed plane, officials say. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com

Module 3.2 Aircraft Systems and Flight: Fuel Management

Module 3.2 Aircraft Systems and Flight: Fuel Management

Why would an aircraft ever need to make an emergency landing or even crash due to fuel starvation? When flying an aircraft, as demonstrated in the presentations about fuel systems, most aircraft have 2 or more fuel tanks. This means the fuel selector typically has at least 3 positions. The fuel tanks are usually located in the wings, and you can usually select left wing, right wing, both or off.  Normally, while in flight the pilot will keep the fuel selector set to both tanks. However, there is occasionally a need to or a type of aircraft that will require you to select an individual tank, and/or have you switch back and forth between tanks during the flight. This could be for weight distribution.    

According to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) website. (”NTSB Safety Alert Addresses Poor Fuel Management". 8/29/2017) between 2011 and 2015 the 6^th leading cause of general aviation accidents was fuel management. This includes fuel starvation and fuel exhaustion. There were more than 50 instances in each of those years. 35% of those accidents were due to fuel starvation. The difference between fuel starvation and fuel exhaustion is that with fuel starvation, you still have fuel on board the aircraft, however, something is preventing the fuel from getting to the engine. With fuel exhaustion, there is no fuel left in the tanks. Fuel exhaustion accounted for 56% of those accidents.

With everything we know today and with the pilot checklists, continuous maintenance inspections as well as additional training, it is hard to believe that an aircraft can still have a fuel management issue in the air. Nevertheless in November 2016, it happened to LaMia Flight 2933, killing 71 people from a Brazilian soccer team. (“Colombian plane crash: Jet without fuel, crew member said”. 12/01/2016) according to the article air traffic controllers were told by a crew member on the flight that “The plane is in total electric failure and without fuel”. This made sense to investigators on the ground, who said they would have expected an explosion or a fire, had there been fuel on the aircraft.

I believe the only way to prevent this from happening again, is continuous training. We just have to keep the conversation going.

Reference:

(8/29/2017) NTSB Safety Alert Addresses Poor Fuel Management. Retrieved from https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/pr20170829.aspx

Ostrower, Jon (12/01/2016) Columbian plane crash: Jet without fuel, crew member said. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/americas/colombia-plane-crash-investigation-fuel/