Flight Safety Information  - October 25, 2021  No. 214



In This Issue 
: Incident: Iberia A321 at Tenerife on Oct 23rd 2021, rejected takeoff due to go around 
: Incident: Spicejet DH8D at Belgaum on Oct 24th 2021, landed on opposite runway 
: Accident: Frontier A320N near Raleigh Durham on Oct 23rd 2021, fumes in cabin 
: Incident: Piedmont E145 at Albany on Oct 21st 2021, engine fire indication 
: Incident: Lufthansa A321N at Heraklion on Oct 23rd 2021, bird strike causes bent nose 
:Incident: Jayawijaya B733 at Jayapura on Oct 22nd 2021, overran runway on landing 
: Cessna 208 Caravan I - Fatal Accident upon landing (Indonesia) 
: FAA still rolling out safety reforms in wake of Boeing 737 Max crashes 
: Watchdog finds flaws in FAA oversight of American Airlines 
: American Flew ‘Unairworthy’ Aircraft Says IG Report 
: SpiceJet Pilots Derostered After Landing Flight On 'Wrong' End Of Belgaum Runway 
: Cancers Strike US Fighter Pilots, Crews at Higher Rates, Air Force Finds 
: Lessons Learned from COVID-19 Could Improve the U.S. Aviation Industry’s Handling of Future Pandemics 
: 600+ Fleet Size In 33 Years: The Story Of China Southern Airlines 
: The Air Force Has A Plan To Make Jet Fuel Out Of Thin Air 
: NASA sets Artemis 1 launch for no earlier than February 

 
 

 
 

Incident: Iberia A321 at Tenerife on Oct 23rd 2021, rejected takeoff due to go around

An Iberia Airbus A321-200, registration EC-JLI performing flight IB-3937 from Tenerife North,CI to Madrid,SP (Spain), had been cleared to line up runway 30 and was cleared for takeoff, commencing takeoff almost immediately after line up.

An Air Europa Boeing 737-800, registration EC-MJU performing flight UX-9118 from Madrid,SP to Tenerife North,CI (Spain), was on final approach to Tenerife's runway 30 descending through about 2700 feet MSL (about 700 feet AGL on 3 degrees glideslope) about 2.1nm before the runway when the crew initiated a go around.

In turn, due to the go around, the A321 rejected takeoff just at about 80 KIAS (86 knots over ground) about 530 meters/1750 feet down the runway, slowed safely and returned to the apron.

The B738 positioned for another approach and landed safely about 18 minutes after the go around.

The A321 was able to depart about 55 minutes after the rejected takeoff.

Iberia Passengers reported the captain announced they rejected takeoff due to another aircraft on final approach going around. Had they continued takeoff a loss of separation might have resulted.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4ef24e2e&opt=0


 

 
 

 
 

Incident: Spicejet DH8D at Belgaum on Oct 24th 2021, landed on opposite runway

A Spicejet de Havilland Dash 8-400, registration VT-SQC performing flight SG-3733 from Hyderabad to Belgaum (India), was cleared to land on Belgaum's runway 26 however touched down and rolled out on runway 08.

The crew taxied the aircraft to the apron, had passengers disembark and embark for the return flight and performed the return flight SG-3734 without reporting the occurrence. After arrival back in Hyderabad a report had been received by the airport of Belgaum, the CVR and FDR were secured, the CVR however already was overwritten.

The airline confirmed ATC had cleared the flight to land on runway 26 at Belgaum, however, the aircraft landed on runway 08. Both pilots have been de-rostered.

India's AAIB is going to investigate the occurrence. The AAIB reported the aircraft landed on the other, unassigned end of the runway. While this is serious enough already the crew apparently committed an even bigger mistake by not reporting the occurrence and performing the return flight. About 4 hours after that landing on the opposite end of the runway the airport operator sent their report in, but by then the CVR, storing two hours of audio, was already overwritten.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4ef1e1ab&opt=0


 




 
 

 
 

Accident: Frontier A320N near Raleigh Durham on Oct 23rd 2021, fumes in cabin

A Frontier Airlines Airbus A320-200N, registration N304FR performing flight F9-1159 from Norfolk,VA to Orlando,FL (USA) with 102 people on board, was enroute at FL360 about 50nm southwest of Raleigh/Durham,NC (USA) when fumes and odour in the cabin prompted the flight crew to divert to Raleigh/Durham. The aircraft landed safely about 20 minutes later. The aircraft was evacuated via slides. One passenger needed to be taken to a hospital.

The airport reported there had been an unknown odour and fumes on board of the aircraft.

The airline reported the aircraft experienced a fume/odor event, as a precaution the passengers were evacuated via slides. There were no injuries, no fire had been on board.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4ef1ab1e&opt=0


 


 
 

 
 

Incident: Piedmont E145 at Albany on Oct 21st 2021, engine fire indication

A Piedmont Airlines Embraer ERJ-145 on behalf of American Airlines, registration N602AE performing flight AA-6014 from Albany,NY to Chicago,IL (USA) with 45 people on board, was climbing out of Albany's runway 19 when the crew stopped the climb at 3000 feet advising they had a left hand engine (Ae3007) fire indication and needed to return to Albany landing on runway 19. They would need to stop on the runway and have emergency services check the engine. The crew further reported while working their checklists that the fire indication had ceased, however, they still wanted emergency services to check them on the runway. The aircraft landed safely on runway 19 about 25 minutes after departure and stopped on the runway. Emergency services reported they did not see any fire or smoke from the left hand engine, the aircraft subsequently taxied to the apron.

A replacement Embraer ERJ-145 registration N692AE reached Chicago with a delay of 6 hours.

The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 20 hours, then positioned to Philadelphia,PA (USA) and resumed service.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4ef13b19&opt=0


 




 
 

 
 

Incident: Lufthansa A321N at Heraklion on Oct 23rd 2021, bird strike causes bent nose

A Lufthansa Airbus A321-200N, registration D-AIEF performing flight LH-1554 from Frankfurt/Main (Germany) to Heraklion (Greece), was on approach to Heraklion's runway 27 when a bird impacted the aircraft's nose. The aircraft continued for a safe landing on runway 27.

The aircraft was unable to perform the return flight. The flight is currently scheduled to depart with a delay of 24 hours.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4ef12e04&opt=0


 




 
 

 
 

Incident: Jayawijaya B733 at Jayapura on Oct 22nd 2021, overran runway on landing

A Jayawijaya Dirgantara Boeing 737-300 freighter, registration PK-JRB performing a freight flight from Wamena to Jayapura (Indonesia), landed on Jayapura's runway 30 at about 09:30L (00:30Z) but overran the end of the runway and skidded sideways by about 50 meters/170 feet. There were no injuries, the aircraft sustained minor damage.

The aircraft was towed back onto paved surface and the runway returned to service at about 12:50L.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4ef062b3&opt=0


 




 
 

 
 






Cessna 208 Caravan I - Fatal Accident upon landing (Indonesia)

Date:	25-OCT-2021
Time:	c. 08:10
Type:	Cessna 208 Caravan I
Owner/operator:	Smart Cakrawala Aviation
Registration:	PK-SNN
MSN:	20800556
Fatalities:	Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 2
Other fatalities:	0
Aircraft damage:	Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location:	Ilaga Airport (ILA/WABL), Papua -  Indonesia
Phase:	Landing
Nature:	Cargo
Departure airport:	Timika-Moses Kilangin (Tembagapura) Airport (TIM/WAYY)
Destination airport:	Ilaga Airport (ILA/WABL)
Narrative:
A Smart Cakrawala Aviation Cessna 208 Caravan I crashed upon landing at Ilaga Airport (ILA/WABL), Papua, in foggy weather
One pilot died in the crash, another was seriously injured and the aircraft was written off.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/269164


 




 
 

 
 

FAA still rolling out safety reforms in wake of Boeing 737 Max crashes

The FAA has also overseen the ongoing development of a safety management system at Boeing in line with international safety standards.

Three years after two fatal crashes of Boeing 737 Max planes, the Federal Aviation Administration is still working to implement many of the safety reforms that were passed in their wake.

In a report to the House Transportation Aviation Subcommittee last week, Administrator Steve Dickson said there have nonetheless been major changes to the relationship between the Chicago-based Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA) and the FAA and the agency’s oversight of aerospace manufacturers.

Lawmakers pressed Dickson for details on how those reforms have been rolled out and in some cases expressed frustration with the speed of the agency’s implementation of the 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act and the 2020 Aircraft Certification, Safety and Accountability Act.

Some 63% of around 300 individual provisions in the bills have been enacted, Dickson said.

FAA Administrator Steve Dickson says there have been major changes to the relationship between Boeing and the FAA and the agency’s oversight of aerospace manufacturers.
 
The two bills will continue to reshape how planes and plane parts across the entire U.S. aerospace industry are reviewed, Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, who chaired the hearing, told the Business Journal. In particular, they have overhauled the way Organization Designation Authority units — the technical experts who report safety data to the FAA — are governed.

“Those units will be much more accountable to the FAA first than they have been in the recent past,” Larsen said. That will serve to eliminate “over-delegation of oversight to manufacturers” that contributed to the design failures of the Renton-made 737 Max.

“Even though the crashes were Max crashes, it happened within a system that applies to all manufacturers in the U.S.," Larsen said.

The hearing was the first chance for Congress to check in with the FAA since the Aircraft Certification, Safety and Accountability Act was passed last December.

Larsen added the bill was not "about Boeing as it is about the entire manufacturing supply chain.”

Other representatives asked for assurances that similar issues wouldn’t be repeated within Boeing’s 777X and 787 Dreamliner programs. Dickson said the company has increased its voluntary disclosures and suspended production on the Dreamliner to work out issues it and regulators identified, steps that weren’t taken in the case of the Max.

The FAA has also overseen the ongoing development of a safety management system at Boeing in line with international safety standards.

That’s all in an effort to root out and prevent “single points of failure,” in the aerospace system, Dickson said.

A Boeing spokesperson said the company would “never forget” the victims aboard the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flights or their families.

“We are implementing the hard lessons learned from this chapter in our history and continuing the work necessary to rebuild trust,” with regulators and customers, the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

Reforms include internal changes and “full cooperation and transparency” with the FAA, the spokesperson said.

Lawmakers also asked for updates on the FAA’s hiring efforts, including measures to ensure it was engaging diverse candidates, to support the increased oversight. The 2020 bill added $27 million per year to the FAA budget to recruit and retain engineers, safety inspectors and other specialists to provide technical expertise.

That enabled the FAA to “expand its ability to hold manufacturers accountable and to be much more aggressive in the certification of parts,” Larsen said.

Dickson also fielded questions from legislators about pilot training, barriers within planes to prevent passengers from reaching the cockpit, and how the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for federal employees may affect holiday travel.

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2021/10/24/faa-administrator-reports-to-congress.html?ana=yahoo


 




 
 

 
 

Watchdog finds flaws in FAA oversight of American Airlines

DALLAS (AP) — A government watchdog said Friday that federal safety regulators routinely fail to ensure that American Airlines gets to the cause of maintenance shortcomings when they are discovered.

The Transportation Department’s inspector general said that in some cases, the Federal Aviation Administration closed compliance cases before American took steps to correct the problem.

The report raised questions about the FAA's policy of relying on airline “safety management systems” to find and fix issues before they become hazards.

In one case, American flew a plane with a broken emergency-evacuation slide for nearly three years before telling the FAA.

In another, no risk assessment was done for a plane that had missing engine bushings and improperly installed struts holding the engines in place. The plane made 1,002 flights “in an unairworthy condition,” according to the report.

An FAA spokeswoman said the agency “agrees with many of the recommendations in the report and is taking steps to address them.”

American said it is proud of its safety record and stays in constant touch with regulators including the FAA and welcomes their feedback.

“This has always been our approach: open, transparent communication and collaboration with our regulators and immediate action to remedy issues and ensure the continued safety of our airline and the industry,” an airline spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. “We plan to work with the FAA to ensure we take positive action and continuously refine and improve our safety controls.”

The inspector general’s office said that in 171 of 185 of cases that it examined, FAA inspectors took American’s word and accepted airline analyses “that did not identify the true root cause of the problem.” In nearly two dozen cases, the FAA closed compliance cases before American fixed the problems, the report said.

The report also said FAA didn’t train inspectors to judge whether American’s safety-management system is effective. Those are top-down systems that are supposed to help identify and fix potential safety problems. The FAA required airlines to adopt such systems in 2018.

American has about 9,000 certificated mechanics and aircraft inspectors at stations in the U.S. and around the world, with its largest maintenance base in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The FAA has about 60 inspectors in Texas and Pennsylvania to oversee American’s maintenance facilities. That ratio means that the FAA relies heavily on the airline’s safety-management system to prevent unsafe planes from flying.

In 2015, the FAA shifted its method of ensuring safety from enforcement to working cooperatively with airlines. In that time, the number of enforcement actions against American dropped from 572 to 31. Incidents that were previously treated as enforcement matters were routinely classified as “compliance actions,” in which the airline agrees to make changes.

American hasn’t had a fatal accident since November 2001, but the inspector general said reports of potentially unsafe maintenance practices have raised concerns about the FAA’s oversight of the airline. In 2018, senior lawmakers on the House Transportation Committee asked the inspector general to review FAA’s oversight of maintenance issues at American.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/watchdog-finds-flaws-faa-oversight-184937915.html


 




 
 

 
 

American Flew ‘Unairworthy’ Aircraft Says IG Report

The Transportation Department’s inspector general says the FAA allowed American Airlines to fly snagged and even non-airworthy aircraft without following up on whether repairs were made. According to an Associated Press report, the IG was generally critical of the performance of both the airline and the regulator in the new safety enforcement environment of safety management systems in which airlines are largely responsible for maintaining compliance and then reporting to the FAA.

In one of the 185 cases examined by the IG, American flew an aircraft that was missing engine bushings and had improperly installed engine support struts 1,002 times with passengers before fixing it. The IG termed that plane “unairworthy.” Another aircraft flew for three years with an emergency slide that didn’t work. The FAA told AP it agreed with much of the report and was working on fixing the issues. American said it welcomed the input. “We plan to work with the FAA to ensure we take positive action and continuously refine and improve our safety controls.”

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/american-flew-unairworthy-aircraft-says-ig-report/


 




 
 

 
 

SpiceJet Pilots Derostered After Landing Flight On 'Wrong' End Of Belgaum Runway

NEW DELHI: Two SpiceJet pilots have been de-rostered after landing a Hyderabad-Belgaum flight on the wrong end of runway at the destination on Sunday. Top aviation authorities have taken a stern view of this lapse as the crew allegedly did not report this and operated the DASH8 Q400 back to Hyderabad. It was only when the Airports Authority of India (AAI) reported this “serious incident” that SpiceJet informed the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board (AAIB) about the same, say investigators probing it. However by then crucial cockpit voice recorder recording (CVR) at the time of this incident was gone as CVR records in a loop keeping only the last two hours of conversation in the flight deck, they add.

“Air traffic control had cleared SpiceJet DASH8 Q400 aircraft (VT-SQC) operating SG-3733 to land on runway 26 at Belgaum. However, the pilots landed on runway 08 (meaning, it touched down on the other end of the runway instead of the designated end),” said a senior official.

The aircraft landed at 11.30 am on the unassigned runway. “While this was serious enough, the pilots committed an even bigger mistake by not informing about the same. They flew back to Hyderabad and went home. Only after AAI informed about this, did SpiceJet inform AAIB at 3.37 pm (four hours after the wrong landing),” said senior investigators.

Belgaum-Hyderabad journey time is 1 hours and 40 minutes. Operating the return flight meant that the CVR recording at the time of wrong landing may have "washed out as the tape can record upto two hours only."

The incident has been categorised as a serious one and AAIB will probe this. “SpiceJet chief pilot spoke to AAIB officials and the latter have asked the crew of this flight to appear for investigation on Monday,” said sources.

A SpiceJet spokesman said: “On Sunday (October 24), SpiceJet DASH8 Q400 aircraft operated from Hyderabad to Belgaum. As per information received, ATC had cleared the aircraft to land on runway 26 at Belgaum. The aircraft, however, landed on runway 08. The aircraft landed safely. Both pilots have been grounded and an investigation initiated."

In the past there have been instances when crew have waited to report an issue on a flight after some time to ensure that the CVR recording at the time of the same is gone as fresh recordings of subsequent flights operated on that aircraft replace that. For instance, a few years back the cabin crew and pilots of an Indian carrier’s (not SpiceJet) international flight had a fight on board. The crew members who reported the matter waited for several hours to ensure that the aircraft had flown for some hours and the CVR recording at the time of their fight had been recorded over.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/spicejet-pilots-derostered-after-landing-flight-on-wrong-end-of-belgaum-runway-dgca-orders-probe/articleshow/87241069.cms


 




 
 

 
 












Cancers Strike US Fighter Pilots, Crews at Higher Rates, Air Force Finds

•	Nearly 30% higher likelihood of testicular cancer and roughly 25% for skin and prostate cancer, according to the military’s most comprehensive study yet.

U.S. Air Force fighter pilots and crew members are far more likely to be diagnosed with certain types of cancers than their fellow airmen, according to the most comprehensive military study to date. 

The study is the first confirmation of a connection long suspected by fighter aviators who saw their peers contracting some cancers at concerning rates. Earlier, less comprehensive studies had proven inconclusive. 

The study also identified at least one airframe—the F-100 Super Sabre—whose crews faced higher rates of almost all types of cancer compared to both their non-flying fellow airmen and the general population. 

The 2021 study, “Cancer Incidence and mortality among fighter aviators,” was conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s 711th Human Performance Wing. It tracked every airman who had recorded more than 100 flight hours in an Air Force fighter aircraft from 1970 to 2004. 

The study found a total of 34,679 “fighter aviators”: fighter pilots and weapons systems officers. Their cancer rates were compared to 411,998 Air Force officers who did not fly fighter aircraft and were on active duty for at least one day from 1970 to 2004. 

Compared to their non-fighter peers, the study found, fighter pilots and their crew were 29 percent more likely to be diagnosed with testicular cancer; 24 percent more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma; and 23 percent more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer. 

When compared to the general U.S. population, fighter aviators were 13 percent more likely to be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 25 percent more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma, and 19 percent more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The study also found that the fighter aviators had similar rates of other types of cancer, such as brain cancer, compared to non-flying Air Force officers. And compared to the general U.S. population, they had lower rates in several categories, including renal, thyroid, and urinary cancer.  

“Current and former fighter aviators are encouraged to discuss this report with their flight surgeon or primary care provider, including such topics as ultraviolet radiation protection and its impact on vitamin D, lifestyle approaches to cancer prevention, and screening for melanoma skin and prostate cancers,” said Maj. Brian Huggins, a preventive medicine consultant with the 711th Wing. 

The study represents the deepest dive to date on a question that continues to surface among the military aviation community: Did their military flying careers cause the many cancers they now see among the men and women they flew with? 

“We’re about to graduate out of the era of ‘We think this deserves a study, and we think that cancer incidence rates and mortality are higher among military aviators, but no one’s paying attention.’ That was 2017, 2018, and 2019. Here in 2021, we have this study. And the Air Force is talking about it out loud,” said Vince “Aztec” Alcazar, a former F-15E Strike Eagle pilot who now leads the aviator medical issues committee for the Red River Valley Fighter Pilots Association, a private veterans support organization. 

The Air Force study also looked at a few specific fighter airframes to compare rates of incidence between those crews and non-flying personnel. However there were limitations. The study only singled out four Vietnam-era warplanes, the F-100, F-4, F-105 and RF-4, to look specifically at those crews’ cancer rates, even though the study covers all fighter jets flying through 2004, such as the F-16 and F-15. 

Earlier Air Force reports have found cancer clusters among F-15E Strike Eagle and C-130 aircrews but the new study did not single out those aircraft. 

Still, among those Vietnam-era planes, there were striking findings, particularly for the F-100 Super Sabre, the nation’s first supersonic warplane. 

“Male fighter aviators who flew the F-100 had greater odds of being diagnosed and dying from colon and rectum cancer, pancreas cancer, melanoma skin cancer, prostate cancer, and brain cancer. They also had greater odds of being diagnosed and dying from thyroid cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, despite similar odds of diagnosis,” the study found. 

Crews who flew the F-105 and F-4 also showed higher rates of testicular, melanoma, and prostate cancer. 

A larger, Congressionally-directed cancer review is also underway. Run by the Defense Health Agency, or DHA, the study is looking at aviation community rates of cancer across all military branches, not just the Air Force. Initial results are expected by year’s end, said a spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.

The DHA study kicked off after Feinstein got language included in last year's defense bill that required the Pentagon to determine whether service members involved in any part of military aviation, whether a pilot, navigator, weapons officer, carrier deck crew or flight line crew have higher rates of cancer than the general U.S. population. 

If the DHA study does find higher rates of cancer for the aviation community, the legislation requires Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to launch a deeper, and much-more-difficult-to-execute study. That study would look for causes, such as whether cockpit emissions may be linked, or contact with fuels, solvents, radars or other environmental factors. It would also calculate rates of cancer by type of aircraft flown and locations served. Finally, it would set recommendations for the age at which cancer screenings should begin for those service members. 

Feinstein and other lawmakers filed legislation to address aviator cancers after a number of former fighter pilots spoke out last year about the high rates of cancers and cancer deaths they were seeing among their ranks. 

One of the initial leaders of that outreach was Thomas “Boot” Hill, a former F-4 and F-14 Navy pilot who served as the commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 143 and air boss aboard the aircraft carrier Washington. 

After several fellow aviators got sick with cancer, Hill started compiling an Excel database of every Tomcat pilot or commanding officer he could verify who had either been diagnosed with or died of cancer. He then expanded it to all Naval aviation airframes. 

Hill started with the year 1985 and got as far as 2001. He found that those naval aviators were three to five times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than the general population. 

The Air Force study and the larger service-wide study expected later this year “means a lot,” said Hill’s daughter Lauren Farrelly, her voice breaking. “It means it wasn’t all in vain, it wasn’t just him sitting, you know, doing a spreadsheet. It gives us some comfort knowing this is something that will continue to be fought for.” 

Hill, 69, died nine days ago, after a decade-long battle with esophageal cancer. In his 23-year Naval aviation career he flew more than 3,600 hours and made 960 carrier landings. 

“My two boys want to be just like him,” Farrelly said.

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2021/10/cancers-strike-us-fighter-pilots-crews-higher-rates-air-force-finds/186324/


 




 
 

 
 

Lessons Learned from COVID-19 Could Improve the U.S. Aviation Industry’s Handling of Future Pandemics

•	According to the stakeholders, passenger confidence in the air travel experience could have been restored more quickly if the federal government had provided greater coordination and guidance earlier in the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the U.S. aviation industry. Passenger traffic in April 2020 was 96% lower than April 2019, and stayed 60% below 2019 levels in 2020. Effects cascaded across airports, repair shops, and the supply chain. For example, in response to reduced demand, airlines parked or retired many aircraft, which reduced demand for maintenance. Manufacturers of airport equipment have also suffered although some have been able to adapt or create equipment to directly help with pandemic response efforts, such as cleaning or temperature screening units.

To assist the industry, over $100 billion in federal assistance has been provided and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has enabled temporary relief from some regulatory requirements as well as providing guidance.

Stakeholders have also taken their own steps to help mitigate the effects of the pandemic and position themselves to maintain business viability until demand increased. These actions included managing costs, such as by implementing early retirement programs; raising funds in the private market to increase liquidity; and taking steps to mitigate COVID-19’s spread among employees and customers. In some cases, airports have paused or cancelled expansion and construction projects.

To reassure and win back travelers, some airlines and airports implemented contactless technology to reduce interaction between passengers and employees, such as adding automated bag drops and biometric ID checks. Other airports implemented consistent messaging and expectation setting about mask and social distancing requirements throughout their hubs to help passengers navigate differences in requirements at different destinations. While some of these measures, such as contactless technology, may be maintained in the long-term, others have been changing as public health needs have evolved with the rollout of vaccines and the beginning of pandemic recovery

On June 11, 2021, 2 million people crossed Transportation Security Administration airport security checkpoints, the highest level since March 7, 2020. However, TSA reported that it screened 1,607,238 air passengers on August 17, a 28 percent decline from the 2,238,462 passengers screened on August 1. Airlines also began to see a new decline in August.

Although airlines have experienced a rebound in demand for U.S. leisure travel in 2021, operational challenges and concerns about the COVID-19 Delta variant have slowed recovery as business and international air travel—the most profitable segments—lag behind. 

Stakeholders have spoken with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and identified areas of concern for policymakers to consider, such as strengthening aviation workforce pipelines, as they determine how or whether to continue to assist the industry in evolving market conditions. 

According to the stakeholders, passenger confidence in the air travel experience could have been restored more quickly if the federal government had provided greater coordination and guidance earlier in the pandemic regarding, among other things, COVID-19 testing, masking requirements, and baseline actions—such as sanitizing and updating signage—that airports and airlines could take. Some said that inconsistent passenger procedures between origin and destination airports were a major challenge.

GAO has reiterated its call for a national aviation-preparedness plan for communicable disease to provide greater coordination among federal and industry stakeholders and help better prepare the U.S. for future pandemics.

Such a plan would provide a mechanism for public health and aviation sectors to coordinate to limit the spread of communicable disease threats and minimize trade and travel impacts. Without this, GAO says the U.S. may not be as prepared to minimize and quickly respond to future communicable disease threats. Members of the House and Senate have introduced bills in support of this matter. In February 2021, H.R. 884, the National Aviation Preparedness Plan Act of 2021, 106 was introduced in the House of Representatives, and in May 2021, the Ensuring Health Safety in the Skies Act of 2021, 107 was reported favorably out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

Globally, on October 22, more than 50 country representatives and the heads of 24 international organizations completed a comprehensive review of pandemic-driven priorities for global air transportation. The result of the International Civil Aviation organization (ICAO) conference on COVID-19 was a declaration formalizing new commitments on border risk management and vaccination approaches, building air transport back better for sustainability and future pandemic resilience, and other key priorities aimed at accelerating air tourism and trade recovery and reconnecting the world.

The declaration commits countries to a multilayer risk management strategy for international civil aviation, and one which is adaptable, proportionate, non-discriminatory, and guided by scientific evidence.

To strengthen global public confidence in air travel, the countries emphasized that while vaccination should not be a precondition for travel, it is highly desirable that it be used to facilitate increased international mobility. Countries agreed to work with ICAO and other stakeholders to ensure the interoperability and accessibility of secure applications to validate pandemic-related testing, vaccination, and recovery certification.

They also committed to promoting, to the greatest extent possible, a harmonized and inclusive approach, including alleviating or exempting testing and/or quarantine requirements for fully vaccinated or recovered passengers, taking into account the different circumstances of individual States and their national policies. This is consistent with current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations.

Additional commitments focused strongly on ensuring the long-term sustainability of the air transportation sector, both in terms of its future resilience to new infectious disease outbreaks and the need to address the climate change challenge.

Further agreement was forged around the financial support needed to sustain air operators and regulators through the coming critical months for sectoral recovery, and to address key safety and passenger facilitation priorities as the global air network returns to full operational readiness.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the aviation industry, both in the U.S. and globally, is unprecedented. Experts firmly believe it will not be the last global pandemic and it is therefore imperative that as the industry builds back better it does not forget the lessons it has learned.

https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/airport-aviation-security/lessons-learned-from-covid-19-could-improve-the-u-s-aviation-industrys-handling-of-future-pandemics/


 




 
 

 
 

600+ Fleet Size In 33 Years: The Story Of China Southern Airlines

The global travel downturn may have clipped its wings, but China Southern Airlines remains one of the biggest airlines in the world. While China Southern’s fleet size and extensive network impress, the airline has managed to build itself up to its present size in just 33 years. Few airlines can match China Southern for that kind of growth.

China Southern Airlines times its start nicely
China Southern Airlines had its genesis in the breakup of CAAC Airlines in the 1980s. The Civil Aviation Administration of China had operated a monopoly airline in China but decided to concentrate on regulating the local aviation market rather than running an airline.

CAAC divided China into seven regions, including the Guangzhou Regional Administration. Guangzhou-based China Southern began flying under its own brand and colors in early 1991. Elsewhere around China, now well-known airlines like China Eastern and Air China also got their start around this time.

In the early 1990s, China Southern Airlines wasn’t the juggernaut it has become today. The airline had a quarter of the planes it now has and flew mostly Chinese domestic routes.

But China Southern got its start at the right time. The airline began flying just as China started growing and adopted a more international focus. China’s growth gave China Southern considerable uplift over the next few decades.

Less than 18 months after first flying under the China Southern brand, the airline placed a US$800 million order for six Boeing 777-200s, with the first due for delivery in 1995.

China Southern’s growth turbo-charged in the early 2000s
Initially, under the terms of the CAAC exiting the airline business, Air China got the lion’s share of international routes in and out of China. But within a few years, China Southern was looking beyond China and keen to establish itself as a premium Chinese carrier.

Helping China Southern’s international ambitions was the signing of an air services agreement between China and the US in 1995 that allowed nonstop flights between the two countries. Within two years, the airline was flying to Los Angeles as well as beginning flights to Amsterdam and Brisbane. It was the start of China Southern’s extensive global footprint.

These flights coincided with the arrival of those Boeing 777-200s. The factory-fresh North American planes helped build China Southern’s reputation. Also helping the airline’s cause was their well-publicized pursuit of western-style transparency, accountability, safety, maintenance, and service.

China Southern’s growth was turbocharged early this century when CAAC decided to consolidate the number of state-owned Chinese airlines. Along with Air China and China Eastern, China Southern Airlines was one of the big beneficiaries.

The airline quickly absorbed Zhengzhou-based Zhongyuan Airlines, taking on their small fleet as well. By 2004, China Southern had merged with Shenyang-based China Northern Airlines and Urumqi-based Xinjiang Airlines. As a result, China Southern’s fleet increased by one-third, and it was flying around 45 million passengers annually by 2005.

This period of state-directed consolidation set China Southern Airlines up to become the powerhouse airline it has become today.

A burst of aircraft orders earlier this century
Beijing’s hosting of the 2008 Olympics also helped China Southern along the way. The Chinese Government had a lot invested in China presenting well to the world. That included sprucing up their airlines.

In the run-up to the Olympics, the Chinese Government placed some big aircraft orders on behalf of its state-owned airlines. China Southern was the only Chinese airline to have Airbus A380s ordered for it. In 2005, five A380s were ordered, worth around US$7 billion.

The A380 was just one of many orders made in a ten-year period between 2005 and 2015. While not all the planes went to China Southern, a lot did. Ever since then, the airline’s fleet has steadily increased in size. As it got more planes, China Southern needed more uses for them. So they began to fly to more destinations more often.

In the middle of the last decade, Chinese airlines were notorious for capacity dumping. They’d fly to some long-haul destinations multiple times a day, far more than actual demand warranted.

China Southern builds itself into a global airline brand
In addition to the A380s, Airbus A330s, Boeing Dreamliners, and a vast array of narrowbody aircraft were ordered by or for China Southern Airlines. The shiny new long-haul jets mostly didn’t arrive until well after the 2008 Olympics, but that really ended up being neither here nor there.

The first A380 landed in Guangzhou in 2011 and began flying between Guangzhou, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong before eventually finding its way onto international routes. Ten years down the track, we know the A380 never really worked for China Southern. Earlier this year, an China Southern executive admitted they’d be open to offloading or retiring the plane.

The first Boeing Dreamliner landed in 2013. The airline now has 27 of them. All up, present-day China Southern Airlines has 635 planes in its fleet. There are bigger airlines (American Airlines has nearly 900 planes), but China Southern’s 33-year journey has been extraordinary.

The bulk of China Southern’s fleet (and these days nearly all of its business) services China’s domestic market. North Asia (which includes China) is the second busiest airline market in the world. On raw flight numbers, OAG data names China Southern as the sixth busiest airline in the world. In October, China Southern is scheduled to operate 68,454 flights.

Guangzhou, China Southern’s home port, is slated at the world’s fourth busiest airport in the world this month, having 3,466,466 seats in and out of the airport – and a substantial percentage of those on China Southern aircraft.

While the global travel downturn has knocked China Southern Airlines around and severely curtailed its international operations, it seems the airline will bounce back bigger and stronger than ever over the next few years. For that reason alone, China Southern is one airline worth watching.

https://simpleflying.com/china-southern-airlines-history/


 








The Air Force Has A Plan To Make Jet Fuel Out Of Thin Air

A new carbon transformation process could be game-changing for the Air Force, which spends billions annually to buy fuel and ship it around the world.

Every year, the U.S. Air Force buys billions of gallons of jet fuel at a cost of billions of dollars. It spends billions more to get it where it needs to go, including directly into aircraft on combat missions via aerial refueling tankers. Now, the service says that it has made significant progress in the development of a chemical process that could allow it to create the fuel it needs right out of the air, reducing its logistical burdens and environmental impacts.

The Air Force Operational Energy office announced today that energy company Twelve, which has been working with the service on this technology, was able to produce viable jet fuel, known as E-Jet, from carbon dioxide in an experiment in August. The Air Force believes that Twelve's current process, which also involves water and power from renewable energy sources, has the potential to be "highly deployable and scalable, enabling the warfighter to access synthetic fuel from anywhere in the world."

"History has taught us that our logistics supply chains are one of the first things the enemy attacks," Roberto Guerrero, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Operational Energy, said in a statement. "As peer-adversaries pose more and more of a threat, what we do to reduce our fuel and logistics demand will be critical to avoid risk and win any potential war."

“With carbon transformation, we are untethering aviation from petroleum supply chains," Nicholas Flanders, Co-Founder and CEO of Twelve, added in his own statement. "The Air Force has been a strong partner in our work to advance innovative new sources of aviation fuel."

The underlying science behind Twelve's carbon transformation process is not new. In the 1920s, German scientists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch invented what became known as Fischer-Tropsch (FT) synthesis. This process has been improved upon since then and remains in use today, including to produce fuels for the U.S. military.

"Fischer-Tropsch certified synthetic fuels are approved as a ‘drop-in’ fuel for each specific aircraft, first commercially, and then by the U.S. military and the aircraft’s associated system program office," according to the Air Force. "The highest blend currently certified is a 50/50 blend of FT synthetic fuel and petroleum fuel."

However, "most synthetic fuels, which are created by a mix of carbon monoxide and hydrogen known as syngas, are produced through burning biomass, coal, or natural gas," the Air Force notes, meaning that fossil fuels are still required. "Twelve’s technology eliminates the need for fossil fuels, producing syngas by recycling CO2 captured from the air and – using only water and renewable power as inputs – transforming the CO2."

The benefits of a potentially simpler, carbon-neutral synthetic fuel manufacturing process could be enormous from a cost perspective, as well as an environmental one. Even a slight reduction in the cost per gallon of fuel could generate significant savings for the Air Force.

In a 2019 op-ed for Defense News, Deputy Assistant Secretary Guerrero highlighted how the Air Force flies regularly flies around 800,000 sorties annually and burns some two billion gallons of aviation fuel in the process. The exact amount of fuel the service uses and how much it spends to buy what it needs every year fluctuate due to changes in operational requirements. 

However, it is always a multi-billion dollar expenditure. In its budget request for the 2022 Fiscal Year, the Air Force included nearly $8.2 billion for fuels of all kinds, which could include aviation gas, as well as other things like gasoline and diesel for ground vehicles. If the service could trim just five cents off the cost of every one of the two billion gallons of aviation fuel it buys every year, that would equate to a savings of $100 million.

It's not just the cost of the fuel itself that's at issue, though. The Air Force also has to pay to get it to units that need it, including in warzones. Beyond how much it can cost to push fuel to forward-deployed elements, there can also be significant risks incurred in doing so.

"The Air Force must use a combination of trucks, aircraft, and ships to ensure fuel is delivered to meet warfighter demand. However, many areas of operation cannot always easily reach traditional access points of the supply chain, particularly during conflict," according to the Air Force. "At the height of the war in Afghanistan, attacks on fuel and water convoys accounted for more than 30% of casualties."

The Air Force says that the infrastructure associated with Twelve's carbon transformation process is not only potentially viable for the production of synthetic fuel at scale, but that it might be possible to craft a version of the system that is readily deployable. This, in turn, could reduce the need to physically deliver large amounts of fuel to units in the field, cutting costs in the logistics chain, as well.

If Twelve's carbon transformation technology is as capable and scalable as the Air Force clearly hopes it is, it could be game-changing for the service. One would imagine that the rest of the U.S. military would be similarly interested in the process, especially if it could produce a wide variety of fuels. Twelve sees an obvious potential commercial market for E-Jet fuel, as well.

Fuel demands across the U.S. military are only increasing, as are the potential dangers to the platforms used to bring it closer to the front lines. The risks to supply chains would only be magnified during higher-end conflicts, especially against near-peer adversaries, such as China or Russia. The Air Force, along with its sister services, are well aware of these realities and are in the process of exploring various potential options to provide battlefield power in the future, from hydrogen fuel cells to small mobile nuclear reactors to even just sending it via a microwave beam from one point to another. 

The Air Force has already acknowledged some potential pitfalls in the carbon transformation concept that will still need to be overcome. The biggest of these will be supplying the power necessary to run the fuel production process, especially in a battlefield context. Since Twelve's process also demands a ready supply of water, which will be another critical resource in future conflicts. 

Twelve has pointed to the idea of being able to extract water from the air, as well, which would eliminate the need to supply that separately. Pulling water out of the air has also been suggested as a possible way to provide water for drinking and other purposes in remote and austere environments, including during combat operations. This, of course, could be a difficult proposition in environments where the amount of ambient water in the air is limited. 

In addition, while this concept would help reduce the Air Force's reliance on fossil fuels, the synthetic products from Twelve's process are still hydrocarbon fuels, though the company says they are very clean-burning. Carbon emissions continue to be a factor in global climate change, an issue that is also of growing concern to the U.S. military, as well as the rest of the U.S. government.

"Exacerbated by climate change, extreme weather events are increasingly damaging infrastructure, disrupting supply chains, impacting force readiness and operations, and contributing to humanitarian crises and instability across the globe," Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a statement yesterday accompanying a new Pentagon report on the security implications of global climate change. "Climate change is also shaping our strategic interests. Competitive advantage in the future will go to those who can fight and win in this rapidly changing strategic and physical environment. "

Still, with the potential to save the service hundreds of millions of dollars and ease ever-growing logistic concerns, it is not surprising that the Air Force is very interested to see if this technology can be made to work as advertised. The first phase of this project is set to end in December, after which the plan is to begin actively working on scaling the process up to demonstrate its ability to make significant quantities of fuel.

It will be very interesting to see where Twelve, in cooperation with the Air Force, takes this project next.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42852/the-air-force-has-a-plan-to-make-jet-fuel-out-of-thin-air


 





NASA sets Artemis 1 launch for no earlier than February

NASA officials said they’re now targeting no earlier than February for the Artemis 1 launch as the completed vehicle enters the final phase of launch preparations.

In a call with reporters Oct. 22, agency officials said they had completed the installation of the Orion spacecraft on top of the Space Launch System’s upper stage, wrapping up the assembly of the vehicle for the Artemis 1 launch. The spacecraft had been moved over the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at the Kennedy Space Center Oct. 19.

“Completing stacking is a really important milestone. It shows that we’re in the home stretch towards the mission,” said Mike Sarafin, Artemis 1 mission manager at NASA Headquarters.

The completed vehicle will undergo tests inside the VAB before being rolled out to Launch Complex 39B late this year, said Tom Whitmeyer, NASA deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development. A wet dress rehearsal, where the SLS core stage is fueled and goes through a practice countdown that stops just short of ignition of its four RS-25 engines, is expected in early January. The vehicle will then go back to the VAB for final preparations before going back to the pad for launch.

“We’re looking at a period of time within February” for the launch, he said. “We’re very excited. We think this is really tremendous progress.”

Sarafin said the launch period for Artemis 1 runs from Feb. 12 to 27. A launch on Feb. 12, the first possible opportunity, would take place at 5:56 p.m. Eastern at the start of a 21-minute window. Additional launch opportunities run from March 12 to 27 and from April 8 to 23.

The launch windows are governed by the performance of the SLS. “It really has to do with the three-body that we’re dealing with” involving the vehicle, Earth and moon, including constraints on a daylight splashdown of Orion. “With the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage, we, at certain points in that lunar cycle, are performance constrained.”

Originally, NASA projected just a one-week launch period per month. However, he said mission planners found a way to double the length of the period by changing parameters of the mission. If the launch takes place in the first half of the period, the mission will last six weeks, versus four weeks for launches in the second half. The difference, he said, is taking an extra lap in Orion’s distant retrograde orbit around the moon, which sets up the desired landing conditions.

The briefing was the first formal confirmation by NASA that Artemis 1 will not launch this year. NASA had been holding on to a launch late this year in public statements, although in recent weeks agency leaders had acknowledged that a slip to early next year was increasingly likely.

While Feb. 12 is the earliest possible launch date for Artemis 1, officials stopped short to committing to that day. Whitmeyer said NASA will wait until after the wet dress rehearsal before setting a formal launch date. “We really want to see the results of that test, see how we’re doing, see if there’s anything we need to do before we get ready to launch,” he said.

Once on the pad, there will be other limitations on the launch. “We are limited by the amount of liquid hydrogen that we have,” said Sarafin, which dictates the amount of time the vehicle can stay fueled on the pad on any given launch attempt as well as the timing between launch attempts.

Mike Bolger, Exploration Ground Systems program manager at KSC, said if the first launch attempt is scrubbed, there would be a 48-hour turnaround before the second attempt. A third launch attempt would come 72 hours after that.

The timing of the Artemis 1 launch will also affect the schedule for Artemis 2, the first flight with astronauts on board. The Orion spacecraft on Artemis 2 will reuse avionics flown on the Orion for Artemis 1. “This puts this iron bar of, I’ll say, 20, 21 months between the missions,” said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, in an Oct. 13 talk at the American Astronautical Society’s Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. That means Artemis 2 could not launch any earlier than 20 to 21 months after Artemis 1, or late 2023 assuming a February 2022 launch.

Agency officials on the call said the schedule for Artemis 2 remains uncertain. Whitmeyer noted an independent schedule assessment of that mission will be released in “a matter of weeks” that will answer questions about its timing.

“We’ve got a whole bunch of stuff that we’ve got to do with that crew capsule to get it ready for flight, so we look at the totality of all the different things,” he said. “I don’t think any one thing is the thing that really drives the schedule.”

https://spacenews.com/nasa-sets-artemis-1-launch-for-no-earlier-than-february/


 






Curt Lewis