American Airlines Boeing 757-200 runway overrun at Jackson Hole, Wyoming

by B. N. Sullivan

Earlier today,  an American Airlines Boeing 757-200 (registration N668AA) overran runway 19 at Jackson Hole Airport (JAC), Jackson, Wyoming.   The aircraft, operating as American Airlines Flight 2253, had just landed at Jackson following a flight from Chicago O'Hare International Airport.  According to the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), there were no injuries among the 181 passengers and crew on board.  No damage to the aircraft has been reported.

The NTSB, which has begun an investigation of the incident, said in a statement that the aircraft  "came to a rest in hard packed snow about 350 feet beyond the runway overrun area." 

There was no emergency evacuation.  Passengers deplaned using stairs.

The incident occurred at about 11:38 AM local time (18:38Z), December 29, 2010.  It was snowing at the time of the incident.

METARS:

KJAC 291843Z 24010KT 1SM -SN BKN004 OVC019 M03/M06 A2913
KJAC 291751Z 22007KT 3/4SM -SN BKN004 OVC010 M04/M06 A2915

UPDATE:  KIDK.com has published a number of photos related to this incident.  (Hat tip to @Heather_Poole for posting the link on Twitter.)

American Airlines Boeing 737-800 runway excursion at Montréal

by B. N. Sullivan

On Tuesday evening, November 30, 2010, an American Airlines Boeing 737-800 aircraft went off the runway at Montréal-Trudeau Airport.  The aircraft, operating as American Airlines Flight AA802, had just arrived at Montréal after a scheduled passenger flight from Dallas-Fort Worth.  No one was injured.

WFAA-TV quoted an American Airlines spokesman, who said that after landing, the plane went off the runway into the grass.  He said only the nose wheel tires went off the runway into the grass and mud.

The American Airlines spokesman said there were six crew members and 105 passengers on board.  They deplaned using stairs.

It was raining at Montréal at the time of the incident.

UPDATE Dec 2, 2010:  The Aviation Herald, quoting NAV Canada, reports that "the airplane exited the runway at a speed of about 70 knots and came to a stop between taxiways E and B2 with all gear off the southern edge of the paved surface. At the time of occurrence there was heavy rain and winds from the south at 15 knots gusting 20 knots."

The incident aircraft's registration number is N901AN.

American Airlines Boeing 757 with hole in fuselage lands safely at Miami

by B. N. Sullivan

Earlier this week, an American Airlines Boeing 757-200 aircraft made an emergency landing at Miami International Airport after experiencing a rapid decompression.  The incident occurred late on the evening of October 26, 2010 not long after the aircraft had departed Miami en route to Boston.  After the aircraft landed safely, it was discovered to have a hole in the fuselage. No one was injured.

The Aviation Herald published this brief description of the incident:

An American Airlines Boeing 757-200, registration N626AA performing flight AA-1640 from Miami,FL to Boston,MA (USA) with 154 passengers and 6 crew, had been cleared to climb to FL310 when the airplane suffered a rapid decompression.  The crew donned their oxygen masks and initiated an emergency descent, the passenger oxygen masks were deployed.  After reaching 10,000 feet the crew requested even lower and descended further to 8000 feet and returned to Miami for a safe landing on Miami's runway 08R about 40 minutes after departure.

A post flight inspection revealed a hole of about 1 foot by 2 feet (33 by 66cm) just above and aft of the L1 door and just above the "A" of the American Airlines Logo.

Visit the Aviation Herald to view photos of the damaged aircraft. Pretty sobering stuff!

If you are thinking this incident sounds vaguely familiar, you are not alone.  When I heard about it, the first thing that came to mind was a similar incident in 2009 involving a Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-300.  In that case, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined the probably cause to be: "Fuselage skin failure due to pre-existing fatigue at a chemically milled step."

To refresh your memory, you can click here to read about the Southwest B737 incident.

American Airlines to recall 250 furloughed pilots and 545 flight attendants

by B. N. Sullivan

American Airlines (AA) is recalling 250 furloughed pilots and 545 flight attendants, according to Gerard Arpey, CEO of AMR Corporation, the parent of AA.  During a press conference in London, Mr. Arpey announced the recalls in conjunction with the initiation of new international routes arising from AA's joint business agreement with Iberia and British Airways .

Recalls will take place incrementally  Pilot recalls will begin in November 2010 when 25 pilots will be brought back to work; then, beginning in December, another 30 pilots will be recalled each month.  American currently has nearly 2,000 pilots on furlough.

Flight attendants are expected to be recalled in two groups.  The first 225 will be asked to return to to AA later this month, and the remaining 320 should receive recall notices before the end of this year.  The majority of flight attendants set to be recalled are former TWA crew, many of whom were laid off nearly a decade ago.

One for the record books: FAA hits American Airlines with $24.2 million fine

by B. N. Sullivan

A press release issued earlier today by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced that the agency has proposed a $24.2 million civil penalty (i.e., fine) against American Airlines "for failing to correctly follow an Airworthiness Directive involving the maintenance of its McDonnell Douglas MD-80 aircraft."  The proposed fine would be the largest ever levied against an airline by the FAA.  American Airlines has 30 days in which to respond, and the airline already has announced that it will challenge the proposed penalty, stating, "We are confident we have a strong case and the facts will bear this out."

The fine arises from alleged violations of a 2006 Airworthiness Directive (AD), which required the airline to inspect wire bundles in the wheel wells of MD-80 aircraft.  The AD required MD-80 operators to look for chafing or signs of arcing of the wire bundle for the auxiliary hydraulic pump, and to perform corrective actions if such defects were found.

The FAA explains:

The purpose of the Airworthiness Directive [AD 2006-15-15] was to prevent the shorting of wires or arcing at the auxiliary hydraulic pump, which could result in loss of auxiliary hydraulic power or a fire in the wheel well of the aircraft. The Airworthiness Directive also sought to reduce the potential of an ignition source adjacent to the fuel tanks, which, in combination with the flammable vapors, could result in a fuel tank explosion.

The airline had until March 5, 2008 to accomplish the required inspections, but on March 25, 2008 the FAA discovered two aircraft that were not in compliance with the AD.  This prompted a series of re-inspections and maintenance work.

On March 26, after American performed additional maintenance on its MD-80 fleet, the FAA inspected eight aircraft at American’s Tulsa maintenance base and found that seven did not comply with the Airworthiness Directive. On April 7, the FAA inspected another nine MD-80 aircraft at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and found that eight of them still did not comply with the AD. A tenth aircraft inspected by American mechanics also did not comply. On April 8, American began grounding its MD-80 fleet to conduct new inspections and redo work as necessary.

The FAA subsequently determined that 286 of the airline’s MD-80s were operated on a combined 14,278 passenger flights while the aircraft were not in compliance with Federal Regulations. American ultimately completed the work required by the 2006 Airworthiness Directive.

The alleged non-compliance with the AD proved very costly for the airline, even before the current proposed fine.  During April of 2008, the temporary grounding of American's entire fleet of MD-80 (S-80) aircraft caused well over 2,000 flights to be canceled.  This disrupted the travel plans of many thousands of passengers and shippers, and resulted in a massive loss of revenue for the carrier.

In addition, American Airlines agreed to provide pay protection to pilots and flight attendants who had been scheduled to work the canceled flights.

It will be interesting to see what details emerge in the airline's response to the FAA.  The airline claimed at the time that the grounding of the MD-80 fleet for re-inspection was "related to detailed, technical compliance issues and not safety-of-flight issues."

Here is the link to the FAA report that details the violations that are the basis for the huge proposed civil penalty: Enforcement Investigative Report No. 2008SW210302 - 58-page 'pdf' document

Related posts on Aircrew Buzz:

• American Airlines pilots' view of MD-80 groundings and re-inspections - Apr 8, 2008
• American Airlines pilots affected by canceled flights get pay protection - Apr 12, 2008
• American Airlines flight attendants get pay protection for lost time - Apr 12, 2008

[Photo Source]

American Airlines: Another day, another fine for another maintenance violation

by B. N. Sullivan

Just a week ago, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposed fines against American Airlines (AA) totaling $787,500 for three separate maintenance violations. Yesterday the FAA came down on AA with another fine -- $300,000 this time -- for yet another maintenance violation. That's more than a million dollars worth of proposed civil penalties in the space of a week for AA, not to mention another $2.9 million in February against American Eagle, the regional carrier owned by AA's parent, AMR Corp.

What is going on? Have AMR's airlines really been falling down on the maintenance job, or have they 'merely' been unlucky in being caught out?

Here are the most recent allegations by the FAA:

The FAA alleges that on Feb. 2, 2009, American Airlines mechanics deferred maintenance on a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 under the airline’s DC-9 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) by noting that the “pitot/stall heater light off” light on the aircraft’s annunciator panel was inoperative.

However, maintenance personnel determined the next day that the inoperative part was actually the captain’s pitot probe heater. Pitot probes are mounted on the exterior surfaces of an airplane and are used in measuring airspeed. Because they can be affected by a build-up of ice, these devices are equipped with heaters. The airplane’s MEL allows for maintenance on the pitot probe heater to be deferred, but it restricts flights to daytime only, in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC). It prohibits flights into known or forecast icing or visible moisture.

Because mechanics logged the discrepancy as an inoperative panel light, the flight crew was unaware that the daytime, VMC restrictions applied to further flights. The aircraft was operated on five passenger revenue flights, in violation of Federal Aviation Regulations.

In a press release announcing this most recent proposed civil penalty against American Airlines, FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said, "We expect full compliance with all of our maintenance standards. Safety is our top concern. Maintenance personnel must pay attention to every detail when they are working on an aircraft."

American Airlines has a 30 day period in which to respond to the new allegations.

FAA proposes fines totaling $787,500 against American Airlines

by B. N. Sullivan

Relations between the AMR Corporation and the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have not been so good so far this year. Last month the FAA proposed a multi-million dollar fine for improper repairs on American Eagle, AMR's regional airline. Today the FAA announced civil penalties totaling $787,500 against AMR's mainline carrier, American Airlines.

Today's announcement cited three separate maintenance violations by American Airlines. Quoting from the FAA press release about the proposed fines:

In the first case, which occurred in April 2008, the FAA alleges American Airlines mechanics diagnosed problems with one of two Central Air Data Computers (CADCs) on a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 jetliner. Instead of replacing the computer, mechanics improperly deferred this maintenance under the airline’s DC-9 Minimum Equipment List (MEL) by noting that the auto-throttles were inoperative. The MEL, however, does not allow deferral of an inoperative CADC.

The airline subsequently flew the plane on 10 passenger flights before the computer was replaced. During this time, flight crews were led to believe that both computers were working properly.

The FAA proposes a civil penalty of $625,000 in this case.

In the second case, the FAA found that in March 2008, American failed to correctly follow an Airworthiness Directive involving the inspection of rudder components on certain Boeing 757 aircraft. As a result, four 757s operated by American Airlines did not comply with the requirements of the Airworthiness Directive.

The FAA alleges that after American was advised of the situation, the company said it would cease flying the planes until they were repaired. However, during the following two days, the airline flew two of the planes on a total of three passenger flights. The FAA is seeking a penalty of $75,000 in this case.

In the final case, the FAA alleges that in May 2009, American’s mechanics returned an MD-82 aircraft to service, even though several steps of a scheduled B-check maintenance visit had not been checked off as completed. The airline also replaced a landing gear door without noting it in the aircraft’s logbook.

The aircraft was operated on two passenger flights with the logbook error. An FAA inspection of the aircraft revealed several discrepancies in the tail section, including loose screws, a missing nut plate and a right hand elevator torque tube binding and making noise. As a result of these discrepancies, the FAA proposes a civil penalty of $87,500.

As is usually the case, American Airlines has 30 days to respond to the FAA.

[Photo Source]

No deal: Contract talks end between American Airlines and flight attendants

by B .N. Sullivan

Contract negotiations between American Airlines and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) ended this evening. The two parties did not reach an agreement. Officers of the APFA, which represents American Airlines flight attendants, now say they will contact the National Mediation Board (NMB) "to schedule a meeting to request a release into a thirty-day cooling off period, at the end of which, APFA can choose to engage in a strike or other forms of self-help."

According to the union:

At 6:30 pm ET, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) gave the company a realistic proposal that addressed the Flight Attendants' needs and the company's concerns. Rather than take any time to consider this offer, the Company exited the room informing APFA that it would not be in position to make a counter-proposal this evening.

But the company said:

APFA's current proposal would cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of their proposed six and a half - year contract, which would keep our labor costs at an uncompetitive level in relation to other carriers. This is an economic reality the company has asked APFA to recognize so both sides can work out an agreement that will allow the airline to compete successfully and provide competitive pay and benefits and a good career for its employees.

In their dueling statements to the press, each side expressed a willingness to continue to negotiate, however no new dates for talks were mentioned.

“APFA remains prepared to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement, but it is clear, now more than ever, that the company does not share the same interest,” APFA President Laura Glading said. “Delay only serves the company. Each day without a new agreement equals another million dollars in the pocket of American.

“The company’s actions speak loudly. When the bargaining party that sits across the table does not want to reach an agreement, that leaves the other party with no recourse other than to move to the next step,” Glading continued. “We have exhausted all of our options and will now meet with our Board this weekend to move forward with the balloting of the membership for a strike vote.”

Meanwhile, American Airlines did post a new counter-offer on the AANegotiations.com Web site this evening: Company Counter Comprehensive Package Proposal – Flight Attendants Version 4.0 (9-page 'pdf' file).

American Airlines announces new round of pilot furloughs

by B. N. Sullivan

American Airlines announced today "the unfortunate need to furlough up to 175 of our pilots in the first half of 2010." Among those who will be laid off are previously furloughed pilots who returned to work during the past year. The airline already has 1,887 pilots on furlough.

In a message to its membership, the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which represents American Airlines pilots, said that "management intends to furlough approximately 130 active pilots. Management has also indicated that the total could reach as high as 160 over the next two months." Presumably those numbers are estimates, since the airline mentioned 175 pilot furloughs in the first half of 2010, and the union specified 160.

According to APA:

The union leadership and Negotiating Committee are discussing a variety of potential furlough mitigation tools, such as voluntary leaves-of-absence and furloughs-in-stead. APA is hoping to compel management to institute early retirement incentives and other such mechanisms to minimize, if not outright eliminate, the need to furlough. Talks with management concerning these issues will continue.

Initial furlough notifications have begun and we estimate that approximately two-thirds of the furloughs will be effective at the end of February. The remaining furloughs will likely take effect at the end of March.

In a statement to the press, American Airlines said, "The impact of the economy and reduction in capacity over the last 18 months, coupled with lower than expected pilot attrition, has resulted in a pilot surplus. This was a painful but necessary decision, as this staffing adjustment will better align the size of our pilot organization with the size of our current operation."

Commenting on furlough mitigation negotiations with the pilots' union, American Airlines said:

"We are also pleased that we were able to work with the APA to move up the furlough date by one day to achieve eligibility for subsidized COBRA medical benefits for the first group of furloughed pilots.

"American values and respects the professionalism, commitment and contributions of our pilots and regrets having to make this difficult decision."

American last furloughed pilots in 2005.

[Photo Source]

Japan Airlines: Imminent bankruptcy to result in loss of 15,700 jobs

by B. N. Sullivan

Japan Airlines (JAL), which has been struggling financially for some time, is expected to file for bankruptcy tomorrow. As a part of its restructuring plan, the airline will eliminate 15,700 jobs -- one third of its work force, according the the Financial Times. The staff reductions are expected to occur over a period of up to three years, rather than all at once.

"JAL’s bankruptcy could be the largest of a Japanese group outside the financial services sector and would be one of the country’s fifth or sixth-largest," says the Financial Times.

JAL is expected to continue operations during its restructuring. The airline will cease operating more than 20 unprofitable routes.

In 2009, JAL asked pilots, cabin crew, and ground workers to volunteer for two months of unpaid leave, and even suspended part of its pilot training programs to save money. Pensions of pilots and other workers also were reduced.

Two U.S.-based carriers -- American Airlines and Delta Air Lines -- have been embroiled in a bidding war for some of JAL's routes. JAL and American are both members of the Oneworld alliance, but JAL is reportedly considering a move to SkyTeam, which would ally it more closely with Delta, which is already a member of SkyTeam.

Reuters reports:

In recent days, reports have suggested that Atlanta-based Delta, with its strong transpacific route structure, could be irresistible for JAL.

A Japanese newspaper reported on Saturday that JAL has already agreed on a tie-up with Delta.

Reuters also reported that while the Japanese government does not have an official stance on who JAL should ally with, some senior officials in the transport ministry are pushing for JAL to defect to SkyTeam.

Catastrophic earthquake in Haiti disrupts air traffic

by B. N. Sullivan

A magnitude 7.0 earthquake occurred 10 miles southwest of Port-au-Prince, Haiti shortly before 5:00 PM Local time on January 12, 2010. The initial quake was followed by numerous aftershocks. Early reports from the area indicate massive damage to buildings and infrastructure and innumerable casualties. In short, this appears to be a truly catastrophic natural disaster.

Air traffic between Haiti and the rest of the world has been disrupted. The last commercial flight to leave the island was American Airlines Flight AA 1908, which was reportedly boarding at Toussaint Louverture International Airport (PAP) as the earthquake struck. The aircraft managed to depart about one hour later and safely completed its scheduled flight to Miami.

The Palm Beach Post interviewed a passenger from Flight AA 1908 after he arrived in Miami. The passenger said he had been inside the terminal at PAP when the earthquake struck.

“It felt like a plane had hit the building, that’s how strong it was,” he said as he emerged from Customs tonight about 9:15 p.m. “But it turned out to be an earthquake.”

He said passengers panicked.

The airline officials told the passengers to wait, but most those who had been scheduled to fly decided not to, he said.

“The airport building itself, was badly damaged, cracked,” he said. The lights went out.

When the flight finally took off, he looked down on the area surrounding the airport.

“I saw buildings that fell down,” he said. “There were some lights still on, but not everywhere. You could see helicopters flying to give help.”

The Wall Street Journal quoted an American Airlines spokeswoman who said that the PAP airport, which was damaged by the earthquake, was closed Tuesday night(Jan. 12) and would remain closed Wednesday (Jan. 13). She also said that 176 passengers had originally been scheduled to board Flight AA 1908, but that the majority "chose to stay behind" after the quake struck. In the end, only 49 passengers and 11 crew members flew to Miami on the Boeing 767 aircraft.

Spirit Airlines, which also flies between the U.S. and Haiti, issued a statement a short time ago, saying:

Spirit has cancelled Wednesday's flights between Fort Lauderdale and Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and will reinstate service as soon as the airport is open.

Spirit is currently reaching out to first-responder organizations and other early-stage disaster relief resources/agencies in order to assist with transporting medical and other professionals, as well as equipment to Port-au-Prince as soon as we are able to operate flights to that airport in an effort to assist as much as possible until the U.S. government and larger relief and humanitarian organizations can gear up what is expected to be a major relief effort.

Several news reports have mentioned that the control tower at PAP was destroyed.

Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority preliminary report on American Airlines Flight 331 accident in Kingston

by B. N. Sullivan

The Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority (JCAA) has released preliminary information regarding the investigation into the American Airlines Flight 331 accident at Kingston, Jamaica. The aircraft, a Boeing 737-800 (registration N977AN), overran the runway at Kingston's Norman Manley International Airport (MKJP) late on the evening of Tuesday, December 22, 2009 as it was arriving from Miami. There were no fatalities among the six crew members and 148 passengers on board, although there were some injuries.

The brief factual report (link below) notes that instrument meteorological conditions prevailed in the area and heavy rain was reported at the airport at the time of the accident. The aircraft was flying on an Instrument Flight Rules Flight Plan.

Quoting from the report:

According to the Norman Manley Tower Controller, as the aircraft was approaching Jamaica the Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) for MKJP, which relays recorded airport and weather information, was broadcasting Runway 12 as the runway designated for arrivals.

The crew contacted Jamaican Air Traffic Control and requested the Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach for Runway 12. The controller advised the crew of tailwind conditions on Runway 12 and offered them a circling approach for landing on Runway 30. The crew repeated their request for Runway 12 and were subsequently cleared to land on that runway, with the controller further advising the crew that the runway was wet. The Captain, who was the pilot flying, reported that he used the Heads Up Display (HUD) during the approach and landing.

The crew reported that after descending through the cloud cover, they made visual contact with the runway at between 1000 feet and 700 feet above ground level. According to the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), the aircraft was traveling at the Vref (landing) airspeed of 148 knots, with a groundspeed of 162 knots, i.e. with a tailwind component of 14 knots, when the wheels made initial contact at about 4,000 feet down the 8,900-foot runway. The FDR further indicated that the aircraft bounced once, then settled onto the runway; the autobrakes then engaged, and reverse thrust and the spoilers were deployed.

The crew reported that at that point they felt that the aircraft did not decelerate normally, and they subsequently applied maximum manual (pedal) braking. The FDR indicates that the aircraft decelerated normally for an autobrake 3 setting.

The FDR indicates that during the landing rollout the aircraft veered to the left of centerline and departed the end of the runway at a groundspeed of 63 knots. Examination of the crash site indicates that the aircraft then exited the runway, went through the perimeter fence, crossed a road, and came to rest on a rock-strewn beach about 175 feet beyond the departure end of Runway 12 and about 40 feet from the water line.

The report goes on to describe the wreckage, stating that the aircraft's fuselage was broken into three major pieces; the right engine, right inboard aft trailing edge flap and the right main landing gear separated from the aircraft; and the left winglet "was almost broken off the wing."

Preliminary examination of the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) contents revealed no "anomalies or malfunctions with the operation of the brakes, spoilers or thrust reversers." The rate of deceleration "appears normal for a wet runway." In short, "no mechanical problems have been found with any aspect of the aircraft."

Grand Cayman was the designated alternate airport for the flight, and the aircraft "had sufficient fuel on board to reach that destination." Also noted: The aircraft was below the maximum permitted landing weight.

Investigators are evaluating runway surface conditions at the time of landing "to determine the effect of this on the braking forces."

The report also mentions that "ground-based navigation and landing aids were evaluated by a check aircraft after the accident, and were determined to be functioning normally."

The wreckage of the accident aircraft will be shipped to the U.S. where it will be held in a secure location while the investigation continues.

Link to the JCAA report: American Airlines Flight 331 Accident Update, Jan. 5, 2010 - 4-page 'pdf' file

American Airlines Boeing 737 crash in Jamaica

by B. N. Sullivan

A Boeing 737-800 aircraft (registration N977AN) operated by American Airlines has crashed in Jamaica. According to a statement from the airline, Flight AA 331 overran the runway on landing at Kingston, Jamaica's Norman Manley International Airport late on the evening of Tuesday, December 22, 2009. The flight had originated at Reagan/National Airport in Washington, DC, operating first to Miami International Airport, and then continuing on to Jamaica from Miami. On board were six crew members and 148 passengers.

News reports from Jamaica say that as many as 40 people may have been injured in the accident. A local official told the Jamaica Observer that the injured had been transported to Kingston Public Hospital.

Jamaican media are reporting that it was raining at the time of the accident.

More details to follow as more information becomes available.

UPDATE: News articles on several Web sites are quoting an American Airlines spokesman who says that the aircraft's fuselage was cracked, its number two engine separated from the wing, and the left main landing gear collapsed. It is unclear whether this damage occurred before or after the aircraft left the runway. Jamaican news sources report that the aircraft came to a rest against the airport perimeter fence.

UPDATE Dec. 23, 2009: In a statement issued early this morning, American Airlines confirmed that two passengers had been hospitalized for observation and treatment, while all other passengers that had been taken to local hospitals were treated and released. The statement did not mention any injuries to crew members.

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has dispatched a team to assist the Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority with the investigation of this accident. The NTSB team includes technical advisors from the Federal Aviation Administration, American Airlines, Boeing, GE Aircraft Engines, in addition to the NYSB's own aviation specialists.

A collection of still photos from the scene of the AA331 accident has been posted on CNN's iReport.

The video below, with raw footage of the accident scene last night, was posted on the Associated Press (AP) channel on YouTube.

If the video does not play or display properly above, click here to view it on YouTube.

---

Related: Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority preliminary report on American Airlines Flight 331 accident in Kingston - AircrewBuzz.com, Jan. 7, 2010

Judge: American Airlines pilots' union cannot advise members to avoid overtime

by B. N. Sullivan

Earlier today, the Allied Pilots Association (APA), which represents the pilots at American Airlines, announced a ruling by federal appeals court Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. that the union would be violating the Railway Labor Act if it encouraged its members not to volunteer for overtime flying. The APA had requested a ruling on the issue in August of 2008, after American Airlines warned the union it might furlough up to 200 pilots.

In his ruling, the judge expressed uncertainty about the impact that such an action by the union would have on the carrier's operations. An APA message to the union membership explained:

At the core of the court's decision: to rule for APA, the court would have essentially had to speculate about the impact of such actions by our pilots. In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged being influenced by the Eleventh Circuit's 2001 decision against the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) in the Delta Air Lines case and the Seventh Circuit's recent decision against ALPA in the United Airlines case, both of which enjoined open-time campaigns at those airlines.

In addition, the court referenced the Railway Labor Act's charter "to prevent, if possible, wasteful strikes and interruptions of interstate commerce" in determining that a ruling for APA would be inconsistent with that charter.

Conversely, the judge also declined to rule -- as management had sought -- that APA had an improper purpose for initiating an open-time campaign. Management contended that APA was seeking to influence collective bargaining, rather than mitigate furloughs.

At the same time, the judge indicated that there was no prohibition against individual pilots refusing on their own to volunteer for open time, stating, "There is a difference between an individual exercising his or her right under a contract and a union collectively encouraging its members to exercise those individual rights."

American Airlines replacing old aircraft with new Boeing 737-800s

Last week, American Airlines took delivery of the first of 76 new Boeing 737-800 aircraft that it plans to add to its fleet by the end of 2011. The new planes, configured for 160 passengers, will replace the carrier's aging MD-80 series aircraft.

American Airlines has posted two videos on YouTube to introduce the new aircraft. In the first, Captain Jim Thomas, American's 737 Fleet Training Manager, shows off the cockpit and new features of the new 737-800s.



In the second video, Flight Attendant Van Whitworth demonstrates some cabin features of the new American Airlines Boeing 737-800.



If the videos do no play or display properly above, here are the links to view them directly on YouTube: Flight Deck video / Cabin video

Hat tip to @Gatea1 for posting the links to the videos on Twitter.

NTSB: American Airlines MD-82 engine fire caused by improper maintenance procedures

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has just released a synopsis of its forthcoming final report on its investigation of a 2007 engine fire on an American Airlines MD-82 aircraft. The report cites "American Airlines’ maintenance personnel’s use of an inappropriate manual engine‑start procedure" as the probable cause for the engine fire, and says that the fire "was prolonged by the flight crew’s interruption of an emergency checklist to perform nonessential tasks." The Board also found that the airline's "flawed internal safety management system, which could have identified the maintenance issues that led to the accident" was a contributing factor.

The Accident

In the early afternoon of September 28, 2007, an American Airlines MD-82 aircraft (registration N454AA) departed Lambert-St. Louis International Airport (STL), operating as American Airlines Flight 1400. The aircraft's number one engine caught fire during climb-out. The crew returned to STL, but during approach the nose gear failed to extend. A go-around was executed, and the crew then extended the nose gear using emergency procedures and successfully landed the aircraft.

The two pilots, three flight attendants, and 138 passengers deplaned on the runway. There were no injuries, but the aircraft was substantially damaged.

Probable Cause

Quoting directly from the NTSB Report Synopsis:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was American Airlines’ maintenance personnel’s use of an inappropriate manual engine‑start procedure, which led to the uncommanded opening of the left engine air turbine starter valve, and a subsequent left engine fire, which was prolonged by the flight crew’s interruption of an emergency checklist to perform nonessential tasks. Contributing to the accident were deficiencies in American Airlines’ Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System program.

Findings

The NTSB investigation found that a component in the manual start mechanism of the engine was damaged when a mechanic used an unapproved tool to initiate the start of the #1 (left) engine while the aircraft was parked at the gate at STL. The deformed mechanism led to a sequence of events that resulted in the engine fire, to which the flight crew was alerted shortly after take-off.

The origin of the problem was traced to a faulty air turbine starter valve (ATSV) air filter. The NTSB says the filter had not been cleaned by maintenance personnel in accordance with C check cleaning procedures, thus, an opportunity to identify and replace the damaged filter was missed.

Investigators found that in the 13 days prior to the accident flight, the aircraft's left engine air turbine starter valve had been replaced a total of six times in an effort to address an ongoing problem with starting the engine using normal procedures. None of valve replacements solved the engine start problem and the repeated failures to address the issue were not recognized or discovered by the airline's Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System (CASS).

Then, says the NTSB, the following sequence of events occurred on the day of the accident:

• The filter element of the air turbine starter valve-air filter disintegrated, allowing the end cap to become free, which blocked the air flow and caused the engine no-start condition.
• American Airlines’ maintenance personnel’s troubleshooting efforts for the engine no-start condition incorrectly focused on the air turbine starter valve (ATSV) and engine start system wiring because of the intermittent nature of the condition, the history of ATSV electrical circuit problems, and the lack of a history of ATSV-air filter failures for which no troubleshooting guidance existed.
• American Airlines’ maintenance personnel repeatedly used an unapproved maintenance procedure, which included using a prying device to push the air turbine starter valve manual override button, to manually start the accident engine, which resulted in bending the internal pin in the override button.
• The internal pin in the left engine air turbine starter valve (ATSV) override button was bent, which resulted in the uncommanded opening of the ATSV during high‑power engine conditions at the beginning of the takeoff roll and caused the air turbine starter to freewheel until it sustained a catastrophic internal failure.
• The open air turbine starter valve and resulting failed air turbine starter allowed a hotter than typical airstream and/or incandescent particles to flow into the engine nacelle area and likely provided the ignition source for the in‑flight fire.

The NTSB notes that fire damage to the engine precluded the determination of the specific source of the combustible fluid (oil, hydraulic fluid, or fuel) that fed the fire, once ignited.

The report suggests that, during take-off, the pilots may not have immediately noticed that the air turbine starter valve (ATSV)-Open light was illuminated "because of its location, static appearance, and color." Once they did detect the light, "the pilots did not immediately respond to it because an open ATSV was considered an abnormal situation that did not require immediate action and they were involved in air traffic control communications and airplane configuration changes."

The NTSB report comments on  what it calls the pilots' "poor performance" during the emergency. A press release that accompanied the report stated that the Board was particularly concerned with how the crew repeatedly interrupted their completion of the emergency checklist items with lower priority tasks.

Specifically, the report says, the pilots failed to properly allocate tasks, including checklist execution and radio communications, and "they did not effectively manage their workload, which adversely affected their ability to conduct essential cockpit tasks, such as completing appropriate checklists."

"Here is an accident where things got very complicated very quickly and where flight crew performance was very important," said NTSB Acting Chairman Mark V. Rosenker.  "Unfortunately, the lack of adherence to procedures ultimately led to many of this crew's in-flight challenges."

Among the Board's conclusions regarding the crew members' behavior:

• The pilots’ interruption of the emergency Engine Fire/Damage/Separation checklist at a critical point prolonged the fire and led to additional problems, including the loss of hydraulic pressure, which caused the nose landing gear to fail to extend.
• Given the airplane’s altitude and the lack of time to prepare for a nose landing gear up landing, the captain’s decision to go around was a reasonable choice.
• The captain’s decision not to conduct an emergency evacuation after the airplane landed was in accordance with company guidance and was appropriate because the fire was not severe and aircraft rescue and firefighting personnel were actively responding to the residual fire.
• The Safety Board concludes that the incident commander’s decision to deplane the passengers after fuel spilled out of the engine area was prudent.
• The first officer did not have a clear understanding of the relationship between the pneumatic crossfeed handle and the engine fire handle, most likely because of inadequate company guidance and training on the issue, which resulted in the first officer inadvertently reintroducing fuel to the left engine, creating potential unnecessary risk of fire.
• The casual atmosphere in the cockpit before takeoff affected and set a precedent for the pilots’ responses to the situations in flight and after landing, eroded the margins of safety provided by the standard operating procedures and checklists, and increased the risk to passengers and crew.
• During the emergency situation, the flight attendants did not relay potentially pertinent information to the captain in accordance with company guidance and training.

The NTSB has issued nine safety recommendations arising from the findings of this investigation. Eight of those recommendations, mostly related to maintenance issues and crew training standards, were made to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The final recommendation was directed to American Airlines:

Evaluate your Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System program to determine why it failed to (1) identify deficiencies in its maintenance program associated with the MD‑80 engine no‑start failure and (2) discover the lack of compliance with company procedures. Then, make necessary modifications to the program to correct these shortcomings.

The NTSB Acting Chairman said, "The airline's own internal maintenance system, the purpose of which is to catch maintenance and mechanical issues that could lead to an incident or accident, failed to do what it was designed to do. And that allowed this sequence of events to get rolling, which ultimately resulted in the accident. Following the appropriate maintenance procedures would have gone a long way toward preventing this mishap."

Here is the link to the Report Synopsis: NTSB/AAR-09/03

RELATED: American Airlines MD-82 engine fire and emergency landing at St Louis

American Airlines to furlough 323 flight attendants

American Airlines (AA) notified its flight attendants' union yesterday that 323 cabin crew would be furloughed as of April 1, 2009. Last month the carrier notified the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) of plans to reduce the flight attendant work force by 410, however dozens of AA flight attendants volunteered for leaves and reduced flying options since then, thereby reducing the total number of involuntary furloughs that would be necessary.

APFA president Laura Glading said in a Hotline message to the union membership:

The most senior Flight Attendant who will be furloughed has a current DECS seniority number of 16900. These members were only recently recalled back to active status and of course this will be most devastating for them. Our heart goes out to our members who will soon be without income, active coverage for health benefits and the career they love.

This furlough will have a further negative impact for all APFA members as it will prolong the period of stagnation which results in increasingly senior reserve lists and limited transfer opportunities.

Assistance information for those about to be furloughed is available on the APFA website.

410 American Airlines flight attendants face furloughs

The Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), the union representing cabin crew at American Airlines, has notified its membership that 410 of its most junior members are subject to furlough effective April 1, 2009. According to a message on the APFA Hotline, the union was told today by Lauri Curtis, American’s Vice President of Flight Service, that "despite the attempts over the last several months to accommodate the Flight Attendant manning overages caused by schedule reductions and reduced passenger loads, the company has been unable to sufficiently absorb the expected additional Flight Attendant headcount."

APFA said to its members, "We are extremely disappointed that the company has had to resort to this action, though are hopeful that through the contractual procedures of Overage Leaves and Partnership Flying proffers, and the re-offering of the Travel Separation Program, the overage will be reduced or eliminated through voluntary means and will thereby reduce, or eliminate, any layoffs."

The APFA leadership has been working with the airline on mitigation efforts ever since last summer when American first announced a need to reduce its flight attendant head count in conjunction with its planned capacity reduction.

The union says that Overage Leaves and Partnership Flying will be proffered again, in accordance with the contract between the flight attendants and the airline. In addition, the airline is renewing the offer of the Travel Separation Program to eligible flight attendants. The union leadership retains the hope that the number of potential furloughs can be significantly mitigated through the various voluntary methods.

On the subject of current furloughees, the APFA Hotline message goes on to say:

We know that, as uncomfortable the prospect of potential layoff is to our most junior members, it also further delays the hoped-for return to work of those presently furloughed. Recognizing this, and the ongoing uncertainty faced by our furloughees, the APFA Board of Directors has achieved and unanimously approved an extension of the recall rights of those currently furloughed Flight Attendants by an additional two years, and an offer to them of a special Travel Separation Program. These Flight Attendants will receive a letter from the Company soon with more information and instructions.

Meanwhile, contract talks between the APFA and American Airlines, which began in May of last year, are set to resume on March 10, mediated by the U.S. National Mediation Board.

UPDATE Mar. 11, 2009: American Airlines to furlough 323 flight attendants

Two U.S. airlines recalling furloughed pilots

This week, two U.S. carriers -- American Airlines and AirTran Airways -- announced the recall of furloughed pilots.

A spokesperson for American Airlines said additional pilots were needed to fly new planes coming into the fleet, and to replace pilots who retired, including some who opted recently for an early-out.

According to the Allied Pilots Association, the union representing pilots at American Airlines:

This week, AMR management announced the creation of a second pilot recall class for the month of March. An initial recall group of 39 pilots will begin Feb. 11 and will now be followed by a group of 10 pilots on March 4 and another group of seven pilots on March 18. An additional 15 pilots have been recalled, but will be placed on military leave of absence.

AirTran Airways, which furloughed 169 pilots this past summer, already has recalled 120 of those, and is sending out letters to recall the remaining 49 furloughees. An article about the AirTran pilot recall in the Atlanta Business Chronicle quoted an airline spokesman who said the pilots are needed for summer and to replace retiring pilots.

Contract negotiations between the AirTran and its pilots' union are also due to resume shortly. The talks had been suspended for several months. The pilots are seeking improvements to job security, work rules, health insurance, benefits and compensation, according to Capt. Mike Best, president of the National Pilots Association, which represents AirTran pilots.

American Airlines and flight attendant union ask for mediation of contract talks

American Airlines and its flight attendants' union have jointly filed a request for mediation of their contract talks by the U.S. National Mediation Board (NMB). The flight attendants, represented by the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (AFPA), have been in negotiations with the airline since May of this year. So far, the talks have yielded progress only on minor issues.

The flight attendants are seeking to recover pay and benefit cuts they agreed to in 2003 to help American avoid bankruptcy. According to the union, pay and benefits for American's flight attendants have been reduced by 25 percent and their workload has increased by 47 percent (the most of any airline), meaning less time with their families.

Union officials say that APFA decided to file for mediation when it was reported the final contract offer on the table from AMR, the American Airlines parent company, to the Transport Workers Union (TWU) -- the union representing ground workers at American -- had no guaranteed structural pay raises, substantial increases for contributions for retiree health benefits and the elimination of virtually all retirement benefits for new hires. TWU filed for NMB mediation earlier this week, separately from the flight attendants. Federally mediated contract talks between American and its piolots, union also are underway

In a statement to the press, APFA President Laura Glading said, "There is no way Flight Attendants will agree to a contract with no significant pay raises for almost 10 years, and at the same time that AMR’s top executives continue to reward themselves with huge bonuses -- $336 million over the past three years. This is just not acceptable. Flight Attendants have made difficult sacrifices to keep this airline flying and deserve a fair and just contract. We will not consider further concessions.

"We recognize the impact the economic downturn has had on the airline industry, just as we recognize the positive effect of falling jet fuel prices," Glading continued. "The company is refusing to recognize the commitment, dedication, and sacrifices Flight Attendants have made for this airline."