| | Date | Title | News | Link |
|
| 3/26/2007 | FAA encourages adoption of electronic runway navigation system | The Federal Aviation Administration said Friday it plans to adopt new rules that would make technology used to prevent runway accidents more affordable for airlines. The agency, responding to industry criticism about the high cost and complexity of certifying the technology, said the move would reduce the cost of installing global positioning systems used to navigate runways by roughly 90 percent, or $180,000 per device. The FAA said the new policies for certifying the systems, which can be installed on most planes, should be in place by late April. "Aviation is about to have a breakthrough application of a very familiar technology, something that could change how pilots safely navigate runways - the way GPS changed the way we drive cars," said Marion Blakely, administrator of the FAA. Originally, the devices were intended to be used while in flight and on the runway, but "the certification process has proven very difficult and very expensive for manufacturers," Blakely said. Under the new rules, carriers will only be allowed to use the devices on the runway. In 2006, there were 31 serious domestic runway accidents, compared with 53 in 2001, according to the FAA. Denver International Airport has had two close calls this year, one involving a plane on the wrong runway and one involving a snowplow. The navigation systems are expected to be available this year and are projected to cost around $20,000 - cheap enough for air carriers to install them in large numbers, the FAA said. More sophisticated - and more expensive - in-flight systems are available on new planes. John Hickey, director of aircraft certification at the FAA, identified potential makers of the navigation systems as Boeing Co. subsidiary Jeppesen Sanderson Inc. and ACSS, a joint venture of L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. and Thales SA., a French defense firm. While the systems would show an airplane's location on a runway, it would not be able to display other aircraft or issue warnings if one gets too close. | |
|
| 3/22/2007 | Jet passengers may not get to chat on cellphones after all | By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY The once-highflying idea of letting passengers use their wireless phones on airplanes is about to be grounded. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is recommending the FCC drop its tentative plan to lift its ban on in-flight cellphone use, three agency officials say. They asked to remain anonymous because the proposal is still being considered. Most of the agency's five commissioners support the recommendation, the FCC officials say. The idea, proposed with much fanfare in late 2004, has been throttled by concerns about interference with cellphone calls on the ground and a lack of interest by both wireless providers and the public. The Federal Aviation Administration also is reviewing whether in-flight cellphone use would disrupt airplane navigation gear. The FCC has long worried that wireless calls at 35,000 feet would clog hundreds of on-ground towers at once. That hurdle was expected to be remedied by a plan to send passengers' cellphone signals to a small airplane antenna, known as a pico cell. The antenna would then relay calls to earthbound towers over spectrum ��� earmarked just for air-to-ground use ��� won by AirCell in an FCC auction last year. But tests conducted last year by CTIA, a wireless association, showed that in-flight calls still cause interference, especially if the pico cell couldn't recognize the passenger's cellphone signal, says CTIA Vice President Chris Guttman-McCabe. AirCell CEO Jack Blumstein says the interference issues can be fixed. The larger obstacle, he says, is a lack of enthusiasm by both consumers and wireless industry players for in-flight cellphone use. In a USA TODAY survey in 2005, 68% of respondents favored keeping the ban. Consumers have voiced concerns that cellphone chatting by air-travel neighbors would be disruptive. Also, Cingular and Verizon also have told the FCC they don't what to share their frequencies in the skies with competitors. Such sharing of constantly-shifting frequencies likely would be necessary for cellphones to work, AirCell has said. Major wireless providers and AirCell are more interested in providing less-obtrusive broadband services, Blumenstein says. A $10-per-trip AirCell service slated to roll out by early 2008 would let passengers use Wi-Fi-equipped laptops to e-mail, surf the Web and access corporate networks. JetBlue, meanwhile, has said it may introduce an in-flight e-mail and text-messaging service later this year. "We've always been interested in broadband Internet and e-mail, not voice," Blumenstein says. Blumenstein says interest in in-flight cellphone use could be revived if a European rollout of the service this year is successful. And Guttman-McCabe says wireless carriers would be supportive if interference glitches are resolved. | |
|
| 3/22/2007 | Air Travelers Alerted to Battery Hazard | The transportation officials said they issued the safety advisory because of concerns about the potential for battery-related fires. The Air Line Pilots Association, a union that represents 60,000 pilots at 40 airlines, also issued a safety alert to its members yesterday advising them how to combat battery fires. "This is a warning to remind passengers to take special care of their batteries," said Patricia Klinger, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which issued the advisory. Among the agency's recommendations: Keep batteries in their original packaging or installed in their devices, keep loose batteries covered with insulating tape or put each one in its own protective case or plastic bag to prevent it from contacting metal. The agency, which is working with the Federal Aviation Administration, also asked passengers to keep batteries in carry-on luggage, not checked bags, because fires are easier to fight in aircraft cabins. Two recent fires prompted yesterday's warning. On Feb. 10, a small fire broke out in the overhead bin of a JetBlue Airlines flight. The crew was able to extinguish the fire, and the plane returned safely to a New York airport. The fire apparently was caused by one or more loose batteries in luggage, officials said. On Sunday, a fire started after a battery overheated or ignited aboard an American Airlines flight leaving Argentina, officials said. The plane landed safely without injuries, though no further details were released by officials. The issue of battery fires isn't new. Federal regulators have tracked the problem for several years and are wrestling with how to ensure safety while not inconveniencing passengers who use electronics to watch movies, listen to music and work. The National Transportation Safety Board last year examined the issue during a hearing prompted by a fire aboard a cargo jet. Deborah A.P. Hersman, an NTSB board member, said that the safety alert "is a good first step." | |
|
| 3/18/2007 | New presentations added to training page | Future of Aviation Safety Module explores topics such as Safety/Accident Trends and Causes; Moving to Super safety (<1E-9), How to improve safety, New technologies. FMEA Module is a practisioners guide and includes the Purpose/Scope of this technique, FMEA Approaches, Advantages and limitations. | |
|
| 3/12/2007 | Boeing 737-800 Spoiler Retraction Failure (EASA Safety Information Notice) | Subject: Boeing 737-800 Spoiler Retraction Failure. Reference Publication: Boeing Flight Crew Operations Manual Bulletin TBC-67, dated March 5, 2007. Introduction: EASA has been notified by FAA about failures of flight spoilers to retract after speed brake handle was moved to DOWN position after landing. The spoiler was discovered in the full extended position during a routine maintenance walk-around. The spoiler remained in the full extended position after cycling of the speedbrake handle. The severity of the observed abnormality implies that it may be already present when the aircraft was approved for installation of the Short Field Performance Package. This actual case is a serious safety issue and this Safety Information has been issued accordingly. Applicability: Boeing model 737- 800 airplanes Recommendation as provided by Boeing: Consider implementing: Boeing | |
|