Latest FAA fine: $1.45 million civil penalty against Northwest Airlines

by B. N. Sullivan

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed so many fines against carriers in the U.S. in recent weeks that I feel like I am writing the same story again and again. Last month American Eagle was fined for improper repairs; then earlier this month the FAA fined American Airlines for maintenance violations, and then followed up with a second round a week later.

But wait, there's more!

Yesterday the FAA proposed a $1.45 million civil penalty against Northwest Airlines for operating a number of Boeing B757 aircraft without proper windshield wiring inspections. Here's the story from the FAA:

A 1990 FAA airworthiness directive on Boeing 757s required inspections for the presence of undersized wires in the heating system for both the captain’s and first officer’s windows, and replacement if needed. Left uncorrected, the problem could cause overheating, smoking and possibly a fire.

Northwest wrote maintenance instructions for its mechanics in April 1990 that omitted the required inspection of the wires under the first officer’s window. As a result, 32 of the carrier’s 757s flew more than 90,000 passenger flights between December 1, 2005 and May 27, 2008, while not in compliance with the airworthiness directive.

“Safety is the number one priority for the Department of Transportation,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “The FAA has airworthiness directives for a reason and carriers cannot pick and choose when they want to comply.”

On May 28, 2008, Northwest discovered it had not performed the proper inspections and revised its maintenance instructions. However, the instructions did not require the work be performed before further flight, but at the next planned overnight layover. As a result, 29 of the 32 aircraft flew 42 passenger-carrying flights while they were still out of compliance with the airworthiness directive.

“When an air carrier realizes that an airworthiness directive is not being followed the problem must be corrected immediately,” said FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt. “Safety cannot wait for the next scheduled maintenance.”

Makes you wonder who's next?

Update on the Airnorth crash at Darwin

by B. N. Sullivan

There are some new developments regarding the Airnorth Embraer 120 Brasilia that crashed at Darwin, Australia earlier this week. The accident, which happened on the morning of March 22, 2010, claimed the lives of both pilots; there were no passengers on board.

A statement from Airnorth on March 22, 2010 described the accident flight as a "routine training flight." Airnorth said that both pilots were experienced flying this aircraft, and that it had "encountered difficulties on takeoff and crash landed at Darwin Airport."

The following day another media statement was released by Airnorth in which the airline's CEO, Michael Bridge, said, in part:

“What I can say is that the training that was being conducted is a mandated element of our recurrent training program for this type of aircraft.

“Airnorth has world’s best practice training procedures in place and we are always working to enhance them. Accordingly, when Australia’s first EMB 120 simulator came on line mid last year, we immediately began moving through the accreditation process with both the simulator operator and CASA. This is well underway.

“Simulator training allows manoeuvres to be practiced repeatedly and can enhance the training process. A significant amount of Airnorth training is already conducted using flight simulators. Even when Airnorth completes the simulator accreditation process some in-flight training will still be required.

“There is currently no full flight simulation training aid available anywhere in the world for this type of aircraft and as such there will always need to be a component of in-aircraft training."

Although he didn't say so directly, this part of Mr. Bridge's statement may have been in response to reports that the crew were practicing a simulated engine failure at takeoff (EFATO) when the accident occurred. Some in the aviation community believe that this kind of maneuver should be practiced only in a simulator rather than in actual flight. Airnorth reportedly does not train EMB 120 pilots in simulators.

An article on the Web site of the Northern Territory News quotes a man identified as a "senior transport and safety investigator" who said, ""When you're simulating the failure of engines and other parts, you obviously have a greater risk than in normal operations."

A short time ago the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) released a statement to the press reporting that they had recovered the flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the wreckage of the accident aircraft. The devices have been transported to the ATSB's technical facilities in Canberra for analysis.

The ATSB also released several photos of the accident site, including the one shown on this page. Here is the link to the page on the ATSB's Web site where you can find official information about the Airnorth EMB 120 accident investigation; links to the photos that have been released are near the bottom of that page.

A preliminary factual report about this accident is expected to be issued by the ATSB in about 30 days.

[Photo Source]

Aviastar-TU Tupolev Tu-204 crashes on approach to Moscow, eight crew injured

by B. N. Sullivan

A Tupolev TU-204-100 passenger aircraft operated by Russian carrier Aviastar-TU crashed early today while on approach to Moscow Domodedovo Airport, destroying the aircraft. All eight crew members who were on board the ferry flight from Hurghada, Egypt have survived, although all were said to be injured.

The accident occurred on Mar. 22, 2010 at about 02:35 AM local time. At the time of the accident, the aircraft (registration RA-64011) was on approach to Runway 14R at Domodedovo when it "disappeared from radar."

According to a FlightGlobal.com article about the accident, the aircraft "came down about 1km from the runway, while attempting to land at night in fog and poor visibility."

Flight Global.com also reported that the cloud base was down to 60m and runway visibility was variable, at 450-700m, but the runway lighting was functioning normally.

There was no post-crash fire. The flight data recorders have been recovered and turned over to MAK, the Russian accident investigation committee, for analysis. Russian aviation authorities have banned Aviastar-TU from carrying out passenger operations while the investigation is underway.

RussiaToday posted this video of the crash site on YouTube:

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

Fatal training accident fot Australia's Airnorth

by B. N. Sullivan

An Embraer 120 Brasilia aircraft (registration VH-ANB) operated by Australian regional carrier Airnorth has crashed at Darwin. According to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), the accident occurred at Darwin Airport, Northern Territory, at 10:10 CST on March 22, 2010. There were no passengers on board the aircraft, but both pilots perished in the accident.

According to an article about the accident published on the Web site of the Northern Territory News:

Police assistant commissioner Mark Payne said the pilots were on a training flight and crashed shortly after take off from the main runway at Darwin airport, which is used by domestic and international flights.

Mr Payne said the two people killed were believed to be experienced pilots who were undergoing routine ongoing training at the time of the crash.

Airnorth operates both scheduled and charter services, and is based in Darwin.

The ATSB is investigating the crash, and will conduct a briefing on known factual aspects of the accident on Mar. 23, 2010.

Condolences to the families and friends of the two crew members who lost their lives in this accident.

[Photo Source]

RELATED: Update on the Airnorth crash at Darwin - Mar. 23, 2010

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.

Jetstar A320 incident: Substantial loss of power in one engine during climb

by B. N. Sullivan

On the evening of Mar. 15, 2010 an Airbus A320-232 aircraft (registration VH-VQO) operated by Australian airline Jetstar experienced a "substantial loss of power" in one engine shortly after departing Adelaide. The incident happened as Jetstar Flight JQ-670, which was bound for Darwin, was still climbing out. The aircraft returned to Adelaide where it landed safely; no one was injured. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has opened an investigation.

Although several news reports about the incident reported an engine fire (or worse), it is not clear exactly what happened. An initial report on the ATSB Web site classified the event as a "serious incident" and included this descriptive statement:

During the climb passing FL120, the aircraft experienced substantial power loss to the right engine. The crew secured the engine and returned to Adelaide.

A Northern Territory News article about the incident, which bore the blazing headline Wing on fire, emergency landing for Darwin flight, was subsequently quoted and elaborated upon by several other news outlets. The Northern Territory News piece quoted passengers from the flight who said that shortly after the seat belt sign went off they heard a loud bang, the cabin shook, and "Passengers on the right side of the plane were saying a big flame came from the right engine then all the lights on the right wing stopped working."

No mention of a wing on fire, except in the title of the article. In fact, the same article quoted a Jetstar spokesman who denied the plane was on fire, but said, "I can confirm some sparks may have been seen by some passengers."

Um, there's a big difference between "wing on fire" and "some sparks."

Another version of the story comes from the Aviation Herald, which, I should note, usually is a reliable source of information about aircraft accidents and safety incidents. According to the Aviation Herald, the trouble began about 12 minutes into the flight, when...

...a loud bang was heard, the airplane shuddered and streaks of flames were seen out of the right hand engine (V2527). The crew radioed "PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN, Jetstar 670, Jetstar 670, engine fire". The crew shut the right hand engine down and set course back to Adelaide reporting, they did have no engine fire indication however fire was observed from the right hand engine. The fire had been extinguished, [and] a normal standby response for the landing rather than an emergency response was sufficient. The airplane returned to Adelaide for a safe landing on runway 23 about 30 minutes after takeoff. Emergency services reported after roll out, that no fire or smoke was visible. The airplane taxied to the apron with the emergency services in attendance.

Was it a surge? Compressor stall? Something ingested by the engine? Until we hear something further from the ATSB, let's just say the number two engine experienced a loss of power and was shut down, and the crew made an engine-out return to the departure airport for a safe landing. Presumably the passengers' heart rates had returned to normal by the time they continued on to Darwin the next day.

Northwest pilots who overflew destination settle with the FAA over license revocation

by B. N. Sullivan

The two Northwest Airlines A320 pilots who famously overflew their intended destination this past October have settled with the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regarding the agency's revocation of the pilots' licenses. In short, the pilots have dropped their appeal of the revocation. They will be permitted to re-apply for their licenses near the end of August, 2010.

For the benefit of readers who may have been living on a remote desert island for the past five months and who are thus unaware of the details of this drama, here is a synopsis of the story.

On October 21, 2009 Northwest Airlines Flight 188 was en route from San Diego to Minneapolis when radio contact with the aircraft, an Airbus A320, was lost. The aircraft, which was at cruise altitude, was a NORDO (no radio communications) for well over an hour, during which time it overflew its intended destination by more than 100 miles.

At some point, a flight attendant on board contacted the flight deck on an intercom regarding arrival time. According to an early National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report about the incident, neither pilot was aware of the aircraft's position at that time. When the flight attendant called, the pilots looked at their primary flight display and realized that they had passed Minneapolis, and were flying over Wisconsin. The pilots then made contact with Air Traffic Control and were vectored back to Minneapolis where they made a safe, albeit late, landing.

Despite early speculation that the pilots may have been napping, they told the NTSB that they had "lost situational awareness" because they were discussing a new crew scheduling system, and were going over the details on their personal laptop computers. They both said they "lost track of time." Shortly after that admission, the FAA summarily revoked both pilots' licenses. In December of 2009, the pilots announced that they would appeal the revocation, denying that they had "intentionally or willfully" violated any federal aviation regulations.

Yesterday the settlement between the pilots and the FAA was announced. The pilots' suspension by Delta Air Lines (which now owns Northwest Airlines) remains in force while the airline continues its own internal investigation of the incident.

Opinions about this incident among those in the aviation community have run the gamut. Many believe the pilots were unfairly vilified, saying that if the news media had not got hold of the story and sensationalized it, these pilots would have received a slap on the wrist and would still be flying -- especially since no one was hurt or killed, and no airplanes were damaged. At the other end of the spectrum are the less forgiving who believe that this was a serious and irresponsible violation, and that the pilots should never fly again.

Regardless, this slip-up by a pair of high-time, accomplished pilots due to distraction and inattention has cost them a lot -- financially and otherwise. Whether they are able to resume their airline piloting careers or not, the incident has changed their lives forever. If nothing else, it is a cautionary tale.

For the record, here are all of the articles I wrote about this incident here on Aircrew Buzz as events unfolded over time:

• Northwest pilots lose situational awareness, overfly destination - Oct. 22, 2009
• Northwest pilots who overflew Minneapolis tell NTSB they were engrossed, using laptops - Oct. 26, 2009
• FAA revokes licenses of Northwest Airlines 'laptop pilots' - Oct. 27, 2009
• Northwest Flight 188 incident: ATC audio and transcripts released by FAA - Nov. 27, 2009
• Northwest Flight 188 incident: Pilots' appeal documents - Dec. 10, 2009

UPDATE Mar. 18, 2010: Today the NTSB released its probable cause findings for the Northwest Flight 188 incident, along with corresponding safety recommendations arising from the investigation. Linkage:

• Incident/probable cause synopsis for NTSB ID: DCA10IA001
• Full narrative report for NTSB ID: DCA10IA001
• NTSB Safety Recommendations: Documentation of Air Traffic Control Communications - 7-page 'pdf' file

Gulfstream III cabin window pane separates in flight

by B. N. Sullivan

The crew of a Gulfstream III aircraft (Gulfstream G1159A) operated by Northeastern Aviation had a weird experience last week. The outer pane of a cabin window separated from the aircraft and was ingested by an engine. Fortunately the crew were able to land the aircraft safely and none of the three crew members and two passengers on board were injured.

The strange incident happened on March 10, 2010 shortly before 1PM EST. The aircraft (registration N155MM) was en route to Stuart, FL from Republic Airport (FRG), Farmingdale, NY. According to a Preliminary Report on the Web site of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):

The PIC stated that while passing through 35,000 feet msl, the crew heard a sound similar to a compressor stall, followed by a loss of power on the right engine. He immediately declared an emergency with air traffic control (ATC) and initiated the checklist for engine shut down in flight.

The cabin service representative came to the cockpit and informed him that the No. 4 outer window pane on the right side of the airplane had separated. The flight crew assumed the window pane had been ingested into the right engine.

The PIC then contacted ATC requested and received clearance to return to FRG. The crew made a visual approach to FRG, landing at 1318, and taxied to the ramp without further incident.

The aircraft is being examined by an FAA inspector, and debris from the cabin window is being sent to the NTSB Materials Laboratory for further analysis.

Northeastern Aviation Corp., a Part 135 charter operator and aircraft management company, is based in Farmingdale, NY.