Northwest pilots lose situational awareness, overfly destination

by B. N. Sullivan

The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating an incident in which a Northwest Airlines A320 aircraft overflew its destination by approximately 150 miles. The two pilots attributed the incident to a loss of situational awareness due to engaging in a 'heated discussion', according to a press release issued by The NTSB.

From the NTSB:

On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 5:56 pm mountain daylight time, an Airbus A320, N03274, operating as Northwest Airlines (NWA) flight 188, became a NORDO (no radio communications) flight at 37,000 feet.

The flight was operating as a Part 121 flight from San Diego International Airport, San Diego, California (SAN) to MSP with 147 passengers and unknown number of crew.

At 7:58 pm central daylight time (CDT), the aircraft flew over the destination airport and continued northeast for approximately 150 miles. The MSP center controller reestablished communications with the crew at 8:14 pm and reportedly stated that the crew had become distracted and had overflown MSP, and requested to return to MSP.

According to the Federal Administration (FAA) the crew was interviewed by the FBI and airport police. The crew stated they were in a heated discussion over airline policy and they lost situational awareness. The Safety Board is scheduling an interview with the crew.

The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) have been secured and are being sent to the NTSB laboratory in Washington, DC.

An article about the incident on the Wall Street Journal Web site suggested that the incident was "a possible case of pilots nodding off at the controls." Presumably an analysis of the CVR contents will clear up whether the pilots were indeed arguing, or whether the cockpit was silent during the period of no radio contact.

UPDATE: The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has issued a statement about actions they took regarding the "unresponsive aircraft".

Fighters from two North American Aerospace Defense Command sites were put on alert yesterday for a Northwest Airlines commercial airliner that was not responding to radio calls from the Federal Aviation Administration. Before the fighters could get airborne, FAA re-established communications with the pilots of the Northwest Airlines commercial airliner and subsequently, the NORAD fighters were ordered to stand down. NORAD does not discuss locations of alerts sites.

UPDATE Oct. 23, 2009: This could be bad news for the investigation of this incident: A new NTSB press release mentions, "The 30 minute solid-state Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) captured a portion of the flight that is being analyzed." If the portion of the flight that the CVR captured is the final 30 minutes, it may not be able to resolve what was happening on the flight deck (and what was not) during the period of radio silence.

---

Related:

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

Sudanese Boeing 707 freighter crash at Sharjah claims six lives

by B.N. Sullivan

A Sudanese-registered Boeing 707-300C freighter has crashed in Sharjah, UAE, claiming the lives of all six crew members on board. The aircraft (registration ST-AKW) was completely destroyed by the crash and the fire that ensued. No one on the ground was injured.

According to news reports, the accident occurred at about 15:30 local time on October 21, 2009, shortly after the aircraft departed from Sharjah International Airport, en route to Khartoum. The aircraft was operating as Flight SD 2241.

A Gulf News article about the accident quoted eyewitnesses who said that after taking off, the aircraft veered sharply to the right, flipped, and burst into flames as it impacted the ground.

Arabian Business reports: "The plane came down near the Sharjah Golf and Shooting Club off Emirates Road at around 3.30pm. Officials said the black box had been found and that a full investigation would be carried out by the General Civil Aviation Authority."

News reports say that the remains of all six crew members have been recovered from the accident scene. All were Sudanese nationals. The aircraft was owned by Azza Air Transport and was leased by Sudan Airways.

Condolences to the families and colleagues of those who lost their lives.

NTSB investigating Delta Air Lines Boeing 767 taxiway landing at Atlanta

by B. N. Sullivan

Yesterday, the Web was abuzz with rumors about a Delta Air Lines Boeing 767 that had mistakenly landed on a taxiway at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport (ATL). Word of this incident generated a lot of chatter on Twitter and aviation message boards, although the details were sketchy at first. By late afternoon we all learned that the aircraft, which was arriving after a scheduled flight from Rio de Janeiro, had declared a medical emergency shortly before landing; that it had been cleared to land on ATL's Runway 27R; and that it had actually touched down on ATL's Taxiway Mike. Fortunately no one was injured.

The gist of all the conversation about this incident has centered on the question, "How could this happen?"

Apparently the U.S. National Safety Board (NTSB) intends to learn the answer to that question. A short time ago the NTSB announced in a press release that they would investigate the incident. Here is what the press release said:

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the landing of a Delta B-767 on an active taxiway at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport (ATL).

According to preliminary information received from several sources, on Monday, October 19, 2009, at 6:05 a.m. EDT, a Boeing B767-332ER (N185DN) operating as Delta Air Lines flight 60 from Rio de Janeiro to Atlanta landed on taxiway M at ATL after being cleared to land on runway 27R. No injuries to any of the 182 passengers or 11 crewmembers were reported.

A check airman was on the flight deck along with the captain and first officer. During cruise flight, the check airman became ill and was relocated to the cabin for the remainder of the flight. A medical emergency was declared and the company was notified by the crew. A determination was made to land at the scheduled destination of ATL.

The flight was cleared to land on runway 27R but instead landed on taxiway M, which is situated immediately to the north and parallel to runway 27R. The runway lights for 27R were illuminated; the localizer and approach lights for 27R were not turned on. Taxiway M was active but was clear of aircraft and ground vehicles at the time the aircraft landed. The wind was calm with 10 miles visibility.

Night/dark conditions prevailed; twilight conditions began at about 7:20 a.m. EDT and the official sunrise was at 7:46 a.m. EDT.

A team of four from the NTSB, led by David Helson, is investigating the incident.

This instance was not the first time a commercial aircraft mistakenly landed on (or took off from) a taxiway instead of a runway. It was this crew's good fortune that the taxiway was not occupied at the time they landed, so there was no collision, however the consequences could have been catastrophic.

I know there's a lot of speculation going on about this incident, not just within the aviation community, but among travelers as well. It's important for future safety to understand how this incident happened, of course, but everyone should remember that it's not possible to second-guess what happened on that flight deck. Now that the NTSB is involved, I think we can be reasonably confident that they will get to the bottom of things. Meanwhile, I hope everyone refrains from the 'blame game' while the investigation is underway. Let's remember that the purpose of such an investigation is to understand the process that led to the error, not to name culprits.

[Photo Source]

Boeing 777-300ER in OneWorld livery delivered to Cathay Pacific Airways

by B. N. Sullivan

Boeing has just delivered a new B777-300ER aircraft to Singapore-based leasing company BOC Aviation and its customer, Cathay Pacific Airways. The plane is Cathay Pacific's 12th B777-300ER, and its 29th 'triple-7' -- but this one is painted with a special OneWorld livery. The special livery commemorates 10th anniversary of the OneWorld alliance, of which Cathay is a member.

According to Boeing, the B777-300ER is 19 percent lighter than its closest competitor, greatly reducing its fuel requirement. It produces 22 percent less carbon dioxide per seat and costs 20 percent less to operate per seat. The airplane can seat up to 365 passengers in a three-class configuration and has a maximum range of 7,930 nautical miles (14,685 km).

Cathay Pacific is one of 11 airlines and 21 affiliate airlines that make up the OneWorld alliance.

[Photo Source]

NTSB says 2007 Citation crash into Lake Michigan caused by pilots’ improper actions

by B. N. Sullivan

On the afternoon of June 4, 2007, a Cessna Citation 500 aircraft crashed into Lake Michigan shortly after departure from Milwaukee. The flight was part of a medical mission to transport a human organ for a transplant patient. On board were two pilots, and four passengers who were members of the University of Michigan transplant team; all six perished in the accident. Today the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released its report on that accident, citing as probable cause "the pilots’ mismanagement of an abnormal flight control situation through improper actions, including failing to control airspeed and to prioritize control of the airplane, and lack of crew coordination."

The Citation (registration N550BP) was operated by Marlin Air as a charter under the rules of 14 CFR Part 135. The NTSB report states: "Contributing to the accident were Marlin Air’s operational safety deficiencies, including the inadequate checkrides administered by Marlin Air’s chief pilot/check airman, and the Federal Aviation Administration’s failure to detect and correct those deficiencies, which placed a pilot who inadequately emphasized safety in the position of company chief pilot and designated check airman and placed an ill-prepared pilot in the first officer’s seat."

The Flight

According to the NTSB report, the aircraft had departed General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, WI en route to Willow Run Airport, near Ypsilanti, MI. Shortly after rotation, the captain, the flying pilot, called for yaw damper activation and turned the airplane to the assigned heading. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) transcript indicated that the captain commented that he was "fighting the controls" -- a phrase that was repeated several times during climbout.

Less than a minute after rotation, the captain is heard saying, "I’m fighting the controls. It wants to turn left hard." The first officer asked about trim settings. The captain replied that there was something wrong with the rudder trim, but that he did not know the reason. Less than two minutes after rotation, the CVR records the captain saying, "Tell 'em we got to come back and land," and then, "She's rolling on me. Help me, help me."

The captain then told the first officer to pull the autopilot circuit breaker; the first officer responded “where is it?” By that time, the aircraft had leveled off and its air speed was about 270 knots.

The crew contacted Milwaukee approach, declared an emergency, and asked to land on "any runway". Around that time, the aircraft began a descending left turn back toward the airport. The airspeed remained about 250 knots. The captain relinquished control of the aircraft to the first officer, saying, "You hold it, I’m gonna try to pull circuit breakers." Moments later, barely three minutes after takeoff, the aircraft crashed into Lake Michigan.

NTSB Findings

The accident aircraft did not have a flight data recorder, so the NTSB could not determine the exact nature of the initiating event of the accident. However, said investigators, "the evidence indicated that the two most likely scenarios were a runaway trim or the inadvertent engagement of the autopilot, rather than the yaw damper, at takeoff."

Quoting the NTSB:

The Board further noted that the event was controllable if the captain had not allowed the airspeed and resulting control forces to increase while he tried to troubleshoot the problem. By allowing the airplane's airspeed to increase while engaging in poorly coordinated troubleshooting efforts, the pilots allowed an abnormal situation to escalate to an emergency.

Therefore, the NTSB concluded that if the pilots had simply maintained a reduced airspeed while they responded to the situation, the aerodynamic forces on the airplane would not have increased significantly. At reduced airspeeds, the pilots should have been able to maintain control of the airplane long enough to either successfully troubleshoot and resolve the problem or return safely to the airport.

The report goes on to fault Marlin Air for operational safety deficiencies that contributed to the accident.

Results from the Board's investigation indicated that the captain did not adhere to procedures or comply with regulations, and that he routinely abbreviated checklists. Subsequently, the NTSB concluded that the pilots' lack of discipline, lack of in-depth systems knowledge, and failure to adhere to procedures contributed to their inability to cope with anomalies experienced during the accident flight.

The accident captain was Marlin's company chief pilot and check airman. The NTSB report states:

If the Federal Aviation Administration guidance regarding check airman appointments and oversight contained procedures for principal operations inspectors to follow (such as heightened surveillance) in cases where review of the pilot’s background or performance reveals negative information, checkride failures, or other performance-related deficiencies, the agency might prevent inadequate and/or undisciplined pilots from being appointed or retained as check airmen.

The investigation found that the captain’s pilot certificates "had previously been revoked because of a felony conviction involving the illegal transport of drugs into the United States," although the FAA had reissued his pilot certificates, and they were valid at the time of the accident. Among the 16 safety recommendations to the FAA contained in this accident report was this one:

Revise check airman approval and oversight procedures to incorporate heightened surveillance during a probationary period and at other times as warranted for check airmen whose background evaluation ion uncovers a history of criminal convictions, certificate revocations, checkride failures, or other performance-related deficiencies. (A-09-XX)

Here are the links to the Narrative Report, Findings and Safety Recommendations and the Flight Path Animation and CVR Transcript for this accident.

Ta daa! JetBlue unveils new livery

by B. N. Sullivan

JetBlue unveiled its new livery this evening in a ceremony at Orlando. They are calling the tailfin design 'Blueberries' (but I think it looks more like blue soap bubbles).

According to a series of tweets on @JetBlue's Twitter feed, the Blueberries design will be applied to several more planes and "the larger logo will roll out as planes need repainting and Blueberries tailfin will be added to the fleet with the others."

The photo here came from JetBlue's Flickr feed. There are lots more photos there from tonight's livery unveiling ceremony. Go there to have a look at the rest of the new aircraft paint job, too.

We'll all be watching for the Blueberries now.

Video: Gulfstream G650 Roll-out at Savannah

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation's new Gulfstream G650 ultra-large-cabin, ultra-long-range business jet rolled out of the hangar under its own power on September 29, 2009 at Gulfstream's Savannah, Ga., headquarters.

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

Hat tip to YouTube user AvionicsVideos for posting the G650 video.

In-flight scuffle: Air India pilots and cabin crew 'get physical' at FL300

by B. N. Sullivan

This isn't the kind of story I usually write about here on Aircrew Buzz. Fortunately.

News media in India are reporting on a rather sensational story about a fight among several crew members during an Air India/Indian Airlines* flight. That's right, an in-flight fight -- an actual physical fight -- as in duking it out!

As best I can figure out from several news stories, the scuffle took place on Saturday, Oct. 3, 2009 on board an Airbus A320 while the aircraft was in cruise at 30,000 ft over Pakistan. The incident happened on Indian Airlines Flight IC 884, a scheduled passenger flight from Sharjah to Delhi, with an intermediate stop at Lucknow. Reports say that there were seven crew members and 106 passengers on board the flight. Two crew members -- a pilot and a flight attendant -- were injured. No passengers were involved.

The physical fight is said to have taken place on the Sharjah to Lucknow leg of the trip, although at least one news story mentioned that the disagreement may have begun on the ground before departure from Sharjah. In any case, as The Times of India tells it, "two members of the cabin crew -- one male and one female -- slugged it out with the pilot and co-pilot," adding that they "came to blows in the cockpit and galley."

More from The Times of India:

No party denied that blows and abuses were exchanged as bewildered passengers looked on. Sources said that the female cabin crew member and the co-pilot sustained bruises.

Confirming the in-flight fight, Air India said it had ordered an inquiry and had grounded the staff members involved. The Directorate General of Civil Aviation has also ordered a probe.

There were unconfirmed reports that at one stage the cockpit was unmanned, as the crew was busy fighting outside. Things allegedly degenerated to the point where the captain threatened to divert the plane to Karachi, likening the situation, sources said, to a "hijack".

Good grief!

Then we move along to a he said/she said account of what transpired. Cabin crew representatives told The Times that "when the woman crew member went into the cockpit, one of the pilots held her hand and then pushed her out of the cockpit," and that she "hit the cockpit door with such force that she started bleeding." At that point the male purser said he went to the cockpit to ask what was happening, but that the pilots "got abusive and started a fight with him."

In the pilots' version, the female flight attendant made a P.A. announcement that differed from what the captain had instructed her to say, so the pilot "scolded" her and called the purser to the cockpit. The pilots' representative said that the purser "became abusive, and tempers ran high in the cockpit." That's when the commander threatened to divert to Karachi. The source went on to explain that the woman crew member "got bruised when she entered the cockpit."

Yes, apparently she really was bruised, a fact confirmed when she visited a hospital after the flight. The woman also "has pressed charges of assault and sexual harassment against the commander and co-pilot," according to a story about the fracas on the ExpressIndia.com Web site.

ExpressIndia.com published a quote from the female crew member, who said, "The commander tried to physically abuse me. When I resisted, he pushed me outside the cockpit." She claimed she was touched at "inappropriate places."

Joint Commissioner (Operations) Satendra Garg said, "A case has been registered under Sections 354, 323 and 34 of IPC accusing the co-pilot and commander of molestation, passing derogatory remarks outraging modesty, and simple hurt. We have got the medical examination done and will take the version of the accused."

All four crew members have been derostered while an investigation of the incident is being carried out. Both the airline and India's Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) are looking into the matter.

*Note: Indian Airlines and Air India, India's two state-owned airlines, were merged into one entity in 2007. They operate as Air India, but I am told that certain flights are designated as Indian Airlines flights, and bear the 'IC' flight numbers.