Crew among fatalities in Iran Air Boeing 727 crash in Iran

by B. N. Sullivan

An Iran Air Boeing 727-200 aircraft (registration EP-IRP) has crashed in northwestern Iran, in Azerbaijan province, killing more than 70 of those on board, including all  crew members.  Iran Air Flight IR 277 from Tehran-Mehrabad (THR) reportedly crashed into mountainous terrain following a missed approach at Urmia (Orumiyeh) Airport (OMH).  The accident happened on January 9, 2011 at about 19:45 local time.

The exact number of people on board Flight IR 277 is unclear.   An accident post on the Aviation Safety Network website says, "ISNA quotes the Roads and Transportation Secretary stating there were 94 passengers and eleven crew members on board. Fars News Agency reports 93 passengers and twelve crew members."

A BBC News article about the accident, quoting Iran's Fars news agency, says there were 33 survivors.

The same BBC article quoted a Red Crescent official who said that "the plane had broken into several pieces, but there was no explosion or fire."

The weather at Urmia Airport was said to be poor at the time of the accident.

UPDATE:  The Aviation Herald reports:

Iran's Transport Ministry said, that there was no emergency.  According to tower tapes the pilot aborted the approach when he could not establish visual contact with the runway at decision height and went around indicating they wanted to return to Tehran.  33 people have been taken to hospitals, 73 have perished.

METARS (via the Aviation Herald):

OITR 091800Z 29004KT 0500 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091750Z 29004KT 0500 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091700Z 33004KT 0600 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091650Z 33004KT 0600 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091600Z 26004KT 0800 SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091550Z 26004KT 0800 SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1016
OITR 091500Z 24006KT 0800 +SN SCT015 SCT020 OVC060 00/00 Q1015

The Associated Press posted this video clip about the Iran Air accident on YouTube.



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

Qantas Flight 32: Crew response to the emergency

by B. N. Sullivan

This is the third in a series of posts about Qantas Flight 32, an Airbus A380 (registration VH-OQA) that experienced an uncontained failure of one of its four Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines during flight on November 4, 2010.  The information here is based on a preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), issued On December 3, 2010.

As mentioned in the previous post, there were five flight crew on board Qantas Flight 32: the Captain (PIC); a First Officer (FO), acting as co-pilot; a Second Officer (SO); a second Captain, who was training as a Check Captain (CC); and a Supervising Check Captain (SCC), who was training the CC.  This post details how they responded to the emergency following the uncontained engine failure that damaged the aircraft and a number of its systems.

Early in the emergency, given that the aircraft was controllable, the crew decided to hold their present altitude while they processed the plethora of ECAM messages that immediately followed the engine failure.  [See previous post.]  They contacted Singapore ATC and asked for an appropriate holding position, ultimately requesting "to remain within 30 NM (56 km) of Changi Airport in case they should need to land quickly."  ATC vectored the aircraft into a holding pattern east of the airport  at 7,400 ft.

As the crew went through procedures associated with the ECAM messages, the SO went into the cabin to try to visually assess the damage to No 2 engine.

As the SO moved through the cabin a passenger, who was also a pilot for the operator, brought the SO’s attention to a view of the aircraft from the vertical fin mounted camera that was displayed on the aircraft’s in-flight entertainment system.  That display appeared to show some form of fluid leak from the left wing.

The SO then went to the left side of the aircraft's lower deck and observed the wing damage and fuel leak.  He saw a fuel trail about 0.5 m wide that appeared to be coming from underneath the wing.

Later, the SCC and SO returned to the cabin "on numerous occasions to visually assess the damage on the left side of the aircraft, and to inspect the right side of the aircraft, and to provide feedback to the cabin crew and passengers."

Meanwhile, up on the flight deck:

The flight crew reported that, during their assessment of subsequent multiple fuel system ECAM messages, they elected not to initiate further fuel transfer in response to a number of those messages, as they were unsure of the integrity of the fuel system.  In addition, the crew could not jettison fuel due to the ECAM fuel jettison fault and they were aware that there was fuel leaking from the left wing.  The crew also recalled an indication that the aircraft’s satellite communications system had failed.  They also received an aircraft communications and automatic reporting system (ACARS)message from the aircraft operator that indicated that multiple failure messages had been received by the operator from the aircraft.

It took about 50 minutes for the crew to complete procedures associated with the many ECAM messages.

They then assessed the aircraft systems to determine those that had been damaged, or that were operating in a degraded mode.  They considered that the status of each system had the potential to affect the calculation of the required parameters for the approach and landing.  The crew also believed that the failure may have damaged the No 1 engine, and they discussed a number of concerns in relation to the lateral and longitudinal fuel imbalances that had been indicated by the ECAM.

The FO and the SCC performed several calculations to determine the landing distance required for their overweight landing.  They determined that landing on Changi's runway 20C  "was feasible, with 100 m of runway remaining," and advised ATC to that effect.

Approach and Landing

Prior to leaving the holding pattern, the crew carried out a number of manual handling checks at holding speed to assess the controllability of the aircraft.

As the crew started to reconfigure the aircraft for the approach by lowering flaps, they conducted further controllability checks at the approach speed and decided that the aircraft remained controllable.  As a result of the landing gear-related ECAM messages, the landing gear was lowered using the emergency extension procedure and a further controllability check was conducted.

The landing performance application indicated a required approach speed of 166 kts.  The flight crew reported being aware that: reverse thrust was only available from the No 3 engine, no leading edge slats were available, there was limited aileron and spoiler control, anti-skid braking was restricted to the body landing gear only, there was limited nosewheel steering and that the nose was likely to pitch up on touchdown.  An ECAM message indicated that they could not apply maximum braking until the nosewheel was on the runway.  The wing flaps were extended to the No 3 position.

Singapore ATC vectored the aircraft to a position 20 NM (37 km) from the threshold of runway 20C and provided for a progressive descent to 4,000 ft.  The PIC was aware that accurate speed control on final would be important to avoid either an aerodynamic stall condition, or a runway overrun. Consequently, the PIC set the thrust levers for Nos 1 and 4 engines to provide symmetric thrust, and controlled the aircraft’s speed with the thrust from No 3 engine.

The autopilot disconnected a couple of times during the early part of the approach as the speed reduced to 1 kt below the approach speed.  The PIC initially acted to reconnect the autopilot but, when it disconnected again at about 1,000 ft, he elected to leave it disconnected and to fly the aircraft manually for the remainder of the approach.  Due to the limited landing margin available, the CC reminded the PIC that the landing would have to be conducted with no flare and that there would be a slightly higher nose attitude on touchdown.

Cabin crew were briefed to prepare the cabin for a possible runway overrun and emergency evacuation.

The aircraft touched down, the PIC applied maximum braking and selected reverse thrust on the No 3 engine.  The aircraft came to a stop with about 150 meters of runway remaining.

After Landing

The crew shut down the remaining engines, however the No 1 engine continued to run.  The crew recycled the engine master switch to OFF, but the engine still did not shut down.  The crew then tried using the emergency shutoff and fire extinguisher bottles to shut down No 1 engine, but to no avail.  Activating a series of circuit breakers in the aircraft's equipment bay, and efforts to starve the No 1 engine of fuel also were unsuccessful.  Ultimately, "the decision was taken to drown the engine with fire-fighting foam from the emergency services fire vehicles," but this did not happen until about 2 hours and 7 minutes after the aircraft landed!

Meanwhile, passengers disembarked on the right side of the aircraft via stairs.

The crew elected to use a single door so that the passengers could be accounted for as they left the aircraft and because they wanted the remainder of the right side of the aircraft to be kept clear in case of the need to deploy the escape slides. They also decided to have the other doors remain armed, with crew members in their positions at those doors ready to activate the escape slides if necessary, until all of the passengers were off the aircraft.

It took about an hour for all passengers and crew to leave the aircraft. There were no injuries reported among the five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440 passengers on board Qantas Flight 32.

[Photo Source]

Click here to view all posts about Qantas Flight 32 on Aircrew Buzz.

Qantas Flight 32: Uncontained engine failure and damage to the aircraft

by B. N. Sullivan

This is the second in a series of posts about the events on board Qantas Flight 32, an Airbus A380 (registration VH-OQA) that experienced an uncontained failure of one of its four Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engines during flight on November 4, 2010.  The information here is based on a preliminary report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), issued On December 3, 2010.

There were five flight crew on board Qantas Flight 32: the Captain (PIC); a First Officer (FO), acting as co-pilot; a Second Officer (SO); a second Captain, who was training as a Check Captain (CC); and a Supervising Check Captain (SCC), who was training the CC.

In a media briefing on the day the preliminary report was released, ATSB Chief Commissioner Martin Dolan praised the crew of Qantas Flight 32, stating that the A380 "would not have arrived safely in Singapore" were it not for the actions of the flight crew.   Reading through the ATSB report, it is clear that the entire crew really had their hands full.

Engine Failure

The ATSB report says that the first sign of trouble came during the climb out of Singapore when the crew heard two "almost coincident" loud bangs.  The PIC immediately selected altitude and heading hold on the autopilot control panel, and the aircraft leveled off, however the autothrust system did not reduce power to the engines as expected.  When it became clear that the autothrust system was no longer active, the PIC manually retarded the thrust levels to control the aircraft's speed.

The Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM) system displayed an "overheat" warning message for the No 2 engine.  Then all hell broke loose on the flight deck.

Within seconds, the overheat warning changed to a fire for the No 2 engine.  The crew decided to shut down No 2 engine, and "after they had selected the ENG 2 master switch OFF, the ECAM displayed a message indicating that the No 2 engine had failed."

The crew discharged one of the engine's two fire extinguisher bottles, but did not receive a confirmation that it had discharged.  They repeated the procedure and again did not receive the expected confirmation.  They attempted to discharged the second bottle; again they did not receive confirmation that the second bottle had discharged.

The crew reported that they then elected to continue the engine failure procedure, which included initiating an automated process of fuel transfer from the aircraft’s outer wing tanks to the inner tanks.

The crew also noticed that the engine display for the No 2 engine had changed to a failed mode, and that the engine display for Nos 1 and 4 engines had reverted to a degraded mode.  The display for the No 3 engine indicated that the engine was operating in an alternate mode as a result of the crew actioning an ECAM procedure.

Shortly afterward, a flood of ECAM messages began to display.  Quoting from the ATSB report:

The flight crew recalled the following system warnings on the ECAM after the failure of No. 2 engine.

• engines No 1 and 4 operating in a degraded mode
• GREEN hydraulic system -- low system pressure and low fluid level
• YELLOW hydraulic system -- engine No. 4 pump errors
• failure of the alternating current (AC) electrical No. 1 and 2 bus systems
• flight controls operating in alternate law
• wing slats inoperative
• flight controls -- ailerons partial control only
• flight controls -- reduced spoiler control
• landing gear control and indicator warnings
• multiple brake system messages
• engine anti-ice and air data sensor messages
• multiple fuel system messages, including a fuel jettison fault
• center of gravity messages
• autothrust and autoland inoperative
• No. 1 engine generator drive disconnected
• left wing pneumatic bleed leaks
• avionics system overheat

Damage to the Aircraft

Unbeknown to the crew at that time, the No 2 engine's intermediate pressure (IP) turbine had failed.  The turbine disc, blade and nozzle guide vanes separated, ruptured the surrounding casing, and damaged the engine's thrust reverser.  A number of components were ejected, which struck the aircraft.

The leading edge of the left wing was penetrated, resulting in "damage to the leading edge structure, the front wing spar and the upper surface of the wing."

The left wing-to-fuselage fairing also was penetrated, "resulting in damage to numerous system components, the fuselage structure and elements of the aircraft's electrical wiring."

Damaged were "elements of the aircraft's electrical wiring that affected the operation of the hydraulic system, landing gear and flight controls; a number of fuel system components; and the leading edge slat system."

The left wing's lower surface was impacted, "resulting in a fuel leak from the Number 2 engine fuel feed tank and the left wing inner fuel tank."

[Photo Source]

Click here to view all posts about Qantas Flight 32 on Aircrew Buzz.

Qantas Airbus A380 uncontained engine failure: ATSB preliminary report

by B. N. Sullivan

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has released its preliminary report regarding its investigation of the November 4, 2010 uncontained failure of a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on a Qantas Airbus A380 aircraft over Batam Island, Indonesia.  The aircraft (registration VH-OQA), operating as Qantas Flight QF32, was en route from Changi Airport, Singapore to Sydney with five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440 passengers on board.  No one on board was injured, but the aircraft sustained substantial damage.  Two people on the ground sustained minor injuries due to falling debris.

The abstract of the ATSB report provides this brief summary of what happened:

Following a normal takeoff, the crew retracted the landing gear and flaps.  The crew reported that, while maintaining 250 kts in the climb and passing 7,000 ft above mean sea level, they heard two almost coincident ‘loud bangs’, followed shortly after by indications of a failure of the No 2 engine.

The crew advised Singapore Air Traffic Control of the situation and were provided with radar vectors to a holding pattern.  The crew undertook a series of actions before returning the aircraft to land at Singapore.  There were no reported injuries to the crew or passengers on the aircraft.  There were reports of minor injuries to two persons on Batam Island, Indonesia.

A subsequent examination of the aircraft indicated that the No 2 engine had sustained an uncontained failure of the Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine disc.  Sections of the liberated disc penetrated the left wing and the left wing-to-fuselage fairing, resulting in structural and systems damage to the aircraft.

As a result of this occurrence, a number of safety actions were immediately undertaken by Qantas, Airbus, Rolls-Royce plc and the European Aviation Safety Agency.  On 1 December 2010, the ATSB issued a safety recommendation to Rolls-Royce plc in respect of the Trent 900 series engine high pressure/intermediate pressure bearing structure oil feed stub pipes.  In addition, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority issued a Regulation 38 maintenance direction that addressed the immediate safety of flight concerns in respect of Qantas A380 operations with the Trent 900 series engine.  On 2 December 2010, Qantas advised that the requirements of Rolls-Royce plc Service Bulletin RB211 72 G595 would take place within the next 24 hours on engines in place on A380 aircraft currently in service, and before further flight on engines on aircraft not yet returned to service.

The ATSB report, which was issued today, is lengthy and detailed.  I will present some of the details of particular interest to crew members in the next two posts on Aircrew Buzz.  Stay tuned for that.

Meanwhile, here is the link to the landing page on the ATSB website where you can find links to the full text reports; photos; and safety recommendations pertaining to this accident: ATSB Investigation Number:AO-2010-089

[Photo Source]

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.

AirTran crew contracts: One down, still one to go

by B. N. Sullivan

AirTran Airways pilots and flight attendants have been negotiating for years with the airline's management, hoping to achieve agreements for work contracts.  After nearly six years of negotiations, the pilots have a new labor agreement in hand, however contract talks between AirTran and its flight attendants seem to be going nowhere.

Pilots

The pilots at AirTran Airways have ratified the tentative contract agreement reached last month with the airline's management.  The pilots' union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), announced the results of the ratification vote today, noting that 86.93 percent of those who cast ballots voted in favor of the agreement.  ALPA said 93.28 percent of eligible AirTran pilots participated in the ratification vote. 

According to a statement issued by ALPA, the new pilot contract enhances pay rates, quality of life, and career protections.  Most elements of the contract will take effect on December 1, 2010.

“By approving this contract, our members have signaled that they are focused on the future and ready to close a contentious chapter in our airline’s history,” said Linden Hillman, chairman of the AirTran chapter of ALPA.  “This deal will provide real improvements in our members’ lives and allow us to concentrate on the important work of merging two great companies.”

Flight Attendants

Last month -- around the same time that the pilots announced their tentative contract agreement -- AirTran's flight attendants filed for mediation of their contract talks by the National Mediation Board (NMB).  The flight attendants, represented by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA), commenced collective bargaining for a new contract in December of 2007.

AFA-CWA says that shortly after Southwest Airlines announced in September that it would acquire AirTran, AirTran management approached the union requesting an abbreviated list of the flight attendants' greatest concerns in order to expedite negotiations.

AFA-CWA explains:

When presented with the union's "short list" proposal, company management responded with a counterproposal consisting mostly of existing contract language and minimal pay increases.  In addition, they failed to address the most basic work, duty and rest provisions.  AFA-CWA rejected management's proposal and filed for mediation services from the National Mediation Board the following day.

Despite AirTran's acquisition by Southwest, AirTran flight attendants will continue to work under the AirTran contract for at least another two years.  AFA-CWA points out that under the Railway Labor Act, "this future change in ownership does not negate the carrier's obligation to negotiate now with its flight attendants in good faith."

"It is incomprehensible that our flight attendants are subjected to the worst work rules of any major airline, while it is those same flight attendants' hard work that has earned AirTran numerous awards and accolades," said Alison Head, AFA-CWA AirTran President.

"Management has worked with its pilots to negotiate an acceptable contract to work under through the Southwest merger process - but refuses to offer some of the same fair work rules to its flight attendants., Ms. Head continued.  "Why would you extend fair work rules to one group of safety professionals and not to the other?"

In order to publicly demonstrate their frustrations over the stalled contract negotiations, AirTran flight attendants plan to picket outside Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport this coming Wednesday, November 24, 2010.

US Airways recalling furloughees, possibly hiring new crew for 2011

by B. N. Sullivan

US Airways has announced plans to add 500 crew members to its active work force in 2011.  The carrier will expand its flight attendant work group by 420, and will add 80 pilots to its ranks.

The expansion will begin with the recall of furloughees.  If the positions are not filled by those currently on furlough, US Airways plans to recruit new crew members.

Following the recall, US Airways expects to have no more flight attendants on furlough.  Up to 100 pilots may remain on furlough.

In a statement to the press, US Airways President Scott Kirby said, "This is great news for our workforce and the communities we serve.  We look forward to welcoming our colleagues back to US Airways, and bringing new crew members onto the team."

US Airways plans to have both the new hires and those who are recalled flying the line by July of 2011.

[Photo Source]

Flight attendant union calls on TSA to fully implement CrewPASS

by B. N. Sullivan

The Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA) has once again called upon the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to fully implement CrewPASS, an identification credential for aviation workers that promotes expedited screening of those who most frequently pass through airport security.

In a press statement issued yesterday, Patricia Friend, AFA-CWA International President, said, “TSA has devoted many resources to enhancing aviation security but, as recently announced screening procedures take effect, it is flight attendants who are adversely affected by lengthy airport security lines.

“Flight attendants are subject to extensive background checks so there is no reasonable explanation why this highly vetted group of aviation employees continues to be exposed to lengthy airport security lines which may affect their ability to report to the aircraft on time.  AFA-CWA supports a multi-layered aviation security system and we urge the TSA to continue work on improving airport security screening effectiveness.”

For years, AFA-CWA has been urging TSA to devote serious resources to the appropriate development and full implementation of an aviation workers’ identification credential that will promote expedited screening of those who most frequently must pass through airport security.  This credential could employ biometrics, such as fingerprints, to quickly screen flight attendants and others.  This would ultimately allow TSA to focus on more effective screening of the hundreds of airport vendors and thousands of aircraft passengers who daily pass through the screening checkpoints.

RELATED:

• Legislation will expedite crew access at U.S. airports
• TSA launches expedited security screening for flight deck crews

AirTran flight attendants file for mediation of contract negotiations

by B. N. Sullivan

The flight attendants at AirTran Airways have filed with the National Mediation Board (NMB) for mediation of contract negotiations. After more than three years of talks, the flight attendants' union believes that their  negotiations with AirTran management have reached an impasse.  AirTran flight attendants are represented by the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA).

A press statement issued by the AFA explains:

Southwest Airlines recently announced its intention to acquire AirTran.  Although the ownership of AirTran is about to change, this does not negate the carrier’s obligation to negotiate with its flight attendants in good faith.

“It is an interesting marriage,” said Alison Head, AFA-CWA AirTran President.  “I was surprised by all the characterizations of AirTran as ‘employee-centric’ because we have certainly not witnessed that.  For over three years, AFA-CWA has tried to work with management on negotiating a contract that adequately reflects the work and dedication we continue to provide to this airline.”

Following the announcement of the acquisition by Southwest, AirTran management approached AFA-CWA requesting an abbreviated list of the flight attendants’ greatest concerns in order to expedite negotiations.  When presented with the union’s “short list” proposal, the company responded with a counterproposal consisting mostly of existing contract language and minimal pay increases.   In addition, they failed to address the most basic work, duty and rest provisions.

“Management’s failure to effectively manage resources and respect the quality-of-life issues are at the heart of our contract demands,” stated Head.   “Just last Friday, Mr. Fornaro asserted that he ‘would like to enter into the relationship with Southwest with everything buttoned up.’  Obviously, the company is not committed to getting an agreement with its flight attendants.  AirTran flight attendants want a contract and will not sit idly by watching management drag this process on any longer.  The flight attendants’ contribution to the success of this airline cannot be ignored.”

Meanwhile, AirTran pilots announced several days ago that they had reached a tentative contract agreement with the airline's management.  A ratification vote on the pilot contract is expected to take place next month.

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.

Allegiant Air flight attendants file for union representation election

by B. N. Sullivan

Allegiant Air flight attendants have filed a petition with the U.S. National Mediation Board (NMB) to hold a union representation election.  The flight attendants are seeking representation by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU).

The TWU Allegiant Air organizers said about the NMB filing:

We are one step closer to having a level playing field, a seat at the negotiating table, and a collective bargaining agreement with management that takes away our status as “at-will” employees.

If the representation election is successful, the flight attendants will be the first work group at Allegiant to be unionized.

Continental Airlines flight attendants reject tentative contract agreement

 by B. N. Sullivan

Continental Airlines flight attendants have rejected a temporary contract agreement (TA), which was reached in September.  Their union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) announced the results of the ratification vote earlier today: 61% of the membership participated, and of those, 45% voted to accept the TA and 55% voted to reject it.

In a statement about the failed ratification vote, the IAM said:

In meetings held with the membership at all bases it became clear the Flight Attendants prefer a complete agreement that provides full recovery of items sacrificed in the previous round of concessionary bargaining, such as sick leave, vacation and 401K Match instead of an interim agreement.

Although we acknowledged from the outset that the Tentative Interim Agreement did not contain everything the membership - or the committee – wanted, in light of the merger with United Airlines it would have been irresponsible of the committee not to allow the Flight Attendants an opportunity to view and vote on the wages, fence agreement and no furlough clause we had achieved in the company’s last proposal.  As the Negotiating Committee indicated before voting began, we would be guided by the membership’s direction, and that direction is clear.

Merger or no merger Continental has a legal obligation to negotiate.  We have notified Continental that we are prepared to immediately resume bargaining which will address the comprehensive agreement that fulfills goals the membership expressed.

Sounds like it's back to the bargaining table for the IAM and Continental management. 

Plane crash attributed to escaped crocodile on board: True or not?

by B. N. Sullivan

According to a story that has popped up on several news Web sites, a crocodile may have been instrumental in causing the fatal crash of a Let L-410 turboprop aircraft earlier this year.  The gist of the story is as follows:

• a passenger smuggled a crocodile on board in hand baggage
• the crocodile escaped from the bag as the aircraft was descending
• frightened at the sight of the reptile, the flight attendant and passengers rushed forward
• this altered the aircraft's center of gravity
• the crew lost control of the aircraft and it crashed

To be candid, I have some doubts about the veracity of these reports -- but then again, while the tale about the crocodile's role in the disaster seems far-fetched, I suppose it is not impossible.

What is certain is that the aircraft, operated by Filair, went down near Bandundu, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) on August 25, 2010, killing 19 people, including the crew.  There was one survivor.  Some time later he, too, was reported to have died of his injuries, but not before he was able to give a statement about the accident to investigating authorities.

Within days of the accident, the Aviation Herald reported this account:

On Aug 27th Filair said the only survivor of the crash was able to provide testimony to investigators.  According to this statement the crew had been told to land on a "reserve strip" alongside the main runway.  The passengers noticed that the airplane was not heading for the runway 11/29 (1380 meters/4530 feet long) and began shouting, then rushed to the cockpit unbalancing the aircraft to a point, where control was lost.  Fuel exhaustion was not the problem, 150 liters of fuel were recovered from the wreckage.  The black boxes were recovered from the wreckage by the Civil Aviation Authority and are being analysed.

No mention of crocodiles at that time.

Here are links to two of the news stories featuring the crocodile version on Telegraph.co.uk and News.com.au.

So, what do you think?  Does the crocodile story sound plausible?  Or do you think this is a rumor turned legend-in-the-making?

[Image Source]

RELATED:  Fatal crash of Filair Let L-410 at Bandundu, DR Congo

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.

Cebu Pacific: How to get passengers to pay attention to the safety briefing

by B. N. Sullivan

Cebu Pacific Air flight attendants demonstrate a novel way to get passengers to pay attention to the safety briefing:



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

RELATED: Southwest Airlines' rapping flight attendant

Southwest Airlines to acquire AirTran Airways, will hire hundreds of new pilots and flight attendants

by B. N. Sullivan

In a move that surprised just about everyone, Southwest Airlines announced today that it will acquire AirTran Airways. Once the two carriers' operations are combined (pending regulatory approval), the merged airline will operate under the Southwest name.

According to the initial press release about the transaction, the combined company will have its headquarters at Dallas.  The acquisition will include AirTran's entire fleet of aircraft, including its Boeing 717s:

Based on current operations, the combined organization would have nearly 43,000 Employees and serve more than 100 million Customers annually from more than 100 different airports in the U.S. and near-international destinations.  In addition, the combined carriers’ all-Boeing fleet consisting of 685 active aircraft would include 401 Boeing 737-700s, 173 Boeing 737-300s, 25 Boeing 737-500s, and 86 Boeing 717s, with an average age of approximately 10 years, one of the youngest fleets in the industry.   Southwest Airlines also announced, previously, that it is evaluating the opportunity to introduce the Boeing 737-800 into its domestic network to complement its current fleet, providing opportunities for longer-haul flying and service to high-demand, slot-controlled, or gate-restricted markets.  This acquisition supports Southwest Airlines’ evaluation of the Boeing 737-800.

No word yet on seniority integration plans for crews, although I'm sure the respective unions are brainstorming already.

The very good news is that no crew furloughs are expected in the foreseeable future. On the contrary, word is out that Southwest is planning to hire 150-200 new pilots, and 250-300 flight attendants very soon.  Michael Van de Ven, Southwest's Chief Operating Officer, said today that training classes for both pilots and flight attendants were anticipated to begin in early 2011.

Here is the link to the Southwest-AirTran merger website: http://www.lowfaresfarther.com/

ASA CRJ-900 landing drama at JFK ends well for all on board

by B. N. Sullivan

High drama at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport on Saturday evening, September 25, 2010:  A CRJ-900 aircraft (registration N133EV) operated by Atlantic Southeast Airlines (ASA) landed with its right main landing gear retracted.  ASA Flight 4951 -- also listed as Delta Connection Flight 4951 -- had been en route from Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL) to Westchester County (HPN), but diverted to JFK after the crew were unable to lower the right main gear while on approach to HPN.  The aircraft landed on JFK's runway 31R and came to a stop with its right wing scraping the surface.  The aircraft was evacuated on the runway.  To the credit of the pilots and flight attendants, no one among the four crew and 60 passengers on board was injured.

The video below was posted on New York Daily News YourTube channel.  The video reportedly was shot during landing by a passenger on board the flight.



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

Conviasa ATR-42 accident at Puerto Ordaz, Venezuela

by B. N. Sullivan

An ATR-42-300 turboprop aircraft operated by Venezuelan carrier Conviasa crashed this morning at Puerto Ordaz, Ciudad Guyana in eastern Venezuela.  The aircraft (registration YV1010) impacted terrain on the grounds of an industrial facility called Siderurgica del Orinoco (SIDOR).  The flight was reported to have 47 on board.  News reports from Venezuela say that at least 13 passengers were fatally injured.  All four crew members are said to have survived.  The aircraft was destroyed in the crash.

There is still some confusion about the flight's origin and destination.  Some news reports say that the aircraft had just departed Puerto Ordaz (SPVR) en route to Porlamar (SVMG), while other reports say that the aircraft was on approach to Puerto Ordaz from Isla Margarita at the time of the accident.  When the correct information emerges, I will post an update here.

Venezuelan television network Globovisión has posted a number of photos of the accident scene on Flickr.

UPDATE: The Aviation Safety Network reports:

Flight Conviasa 2350 had departed Porlamar-del Caribe Santiago Mariño International Airport (PMV) on a domestic service to Puerto Ordaz Airport (PZO). It came down in an industrial area about 8 km from runway 07.

Conflicting news reports indicate that the airplane also have been on a flight from Puerto Ordaz to Porlamar. Yet the flight number mentioned by several other news sources is a flight from PMV to PZO.

UPDATE 2:  Here is a link to a news release about the accident issued by Venezuela's Instituto Nacional de Aeronáutica Civil (INAC).

UPDATE Sep 14, 2010:  Earlier today, Transportation Minister Francisco Garces told news reporters that some of those who initially survived the Conviasa accident had succumbed to their injuries, raising the death toll to 17.

Condolences to all those who have lost a family member or friend in this accident.

JetBlue Airbus A320 landed with parking brake engaged, says NTSB

by B. N. Sullivan

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued a preliminary report on an incident last month involving an Airbus A320-232 aircraft operated by JetBlue Airways.  On  August 26, 2010, the aircraft (registration N590JB) flew from Daugherty Field, Long Beach, CA (LGB) to Sacramento International Airport (SMF), operating as Flight JBU 262.  Shortly after landing at Sacramento, a fire erupted in the area of the main landing gear, prompting the crew to carry out an emergency evacuation of the aircraft on the runway.  The NTSB found that the aircraft's parking brake was engaged during the landing.

From the NTSB preliminary report:

According to the flight crew, the flight and approach to runway 16R were normal.  The first officer was the flying pilot.

On touchdown, the airplane began a rapid deceleration, and the first officer remarked to the captain that it felt like a main landing gear tire blew out.  About this time, air traffic control tower personnel reported observing sparks and smoke in the area of the main landing gear.  The captain took control of the airplane.  He maintained directional control, and the airplane came to a stop about 2,000 feet from the touchdown point.

The captain directed the first officer to initiate the ground evacuation Quick Reference Checklist up to the evacuation decision point.  At that time, air traffic control tower personnel confirmed smoke and fire was still visible around the main landing gear.  Based on this information the captain elected to evacuate the airplane.

Crash fire rescue personnel and equipment responded to the airplane, which had stopped on the runway.  According to the flight crew and flight attendants, a swift and orderly evacuation was performed via emergency evacuation slides at the L1, R1, and L2 doors.

The airplane was subsequently examined by the operator and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) personnel.  Airplane damage was limited to four deflated main landing gear tires and ground down wheel rims.  The main landing gear tires showed evidence of being locked on touchdown.  Ground damage was limited to minor grazing to the runway's surface.

According to airplane recorded flight data, the parking brake had become engaged during the landing approach approximately 5,100 feet mean sea level, and it remained engaged throughout the landing.  During interviews with the flight crew, neither pilot recalled any abnormal indications or warnings associated with the braking system prior to landing. [NTSB ID: WPR10IA430]

Seven of the 86 passengers on board sustained minor injuries during the evacuation process.  The two pilots and three flight attendants were not injured.

It is still unclear how the parking brake became engaged during flight. The investigation is continuing.

[Photo Source]

ALPA responds to Comair plans for drastic fleet reduction, crew furloughs

by B. N. Sullivan

Last week, U.S. regional airline Comair, a wholly owned subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, announced plans for a drastic reduction of its aircraft fleet over the coming two years.  The carrier plans to retire 49 of its 93 aircraft, including most of its 50-seat CRJ 100s and 200s, by the end of 2012.  Furloughs are sure to follow.

Today, Comair management was scheduled to meet with union leaders from several of its work groups, including representatives of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, and Teamsters Local 513.

Capt. Matt Lamparter, chairman of the Comair unit of ALPA released the following statement today:

“Obviously, we are deeply disappointed by the company’s plans to restructure the airline. However, our commitment has been and remains to our pilots and to protecting our contract, our jobs, and our futures.

“We intend to use the full array of ALPA resources to ensure that any downsizing of the company will have the input of our pilot group and will respect our contract. We have scheduled meetings with Comair management and plan to be a full partner as this restructuring moves forward.

“Despite the heavy burden of this announcement, Comair pilots will continue to demonstrate the professionalism and solidarity—both in the cockpit and out—that built this airline and carried it through a bankruptcy and a strike. As before, when faced with challenges, this pilot group has overcome and succeeded. Although the situation is different, our goal is the same: a strong and unified pilot group and a successful airline.”

Comair has not yet made public the number of crew and ground staff jobs that will be cut in the course of the restructuring.  Expect to hear about voluntary severance offers and furloughs in the near future.