21-27 January 2020 I flightglobal.

com

ANALYSIS

Crash
course
Why tragedies in 2019
demand closer inspection

£3.90 Pole position After Gabriel

0 3
How Max grounding handed France converts to Falcon 8X
Airbus big deliveries lead 7 for SIGINT fleet renewal 17
9 770015 371310
 In association with

The 4th annual

A4E Aviation Summit

Brussels | 3 March 2020
Bringing together Europe’s leading airline CEOs
and global aviation leaders
Europe’s aviation industry is facing many challenges: From will explore ways airlines are embracing new technologies
socio-economic, to regulatory and environmental – the sector and innovations to overcome existing bottlenecks, and how
continues to adapt and evolve to overcome them, striving for smart EU policies can help deliver sustainable aviation of the
a safer, more sustainable and more integrated Europe. future.

The A4E Aviation Summit, in association with FlightGlobal, Supported by FlightGlobal, the aviation community’s
provides the perfect opportunity to take part in the primary source of news, data, insight and know-how,
discussion. Bringing together the industry’s leading airline delegates are assured high-level content and expert-led
CEOs and global aviation leaders, this 4th annual event moderation.

Speaker spotlight:

Benjamin Smith Johan Lundgren Willie Walsh Carsten Spohr Michael O’Leary
CEO CEO CEO Chairman of the CEO
Air France-KLM easyJet International Airlines Executive Board Ryanair Group
Group (IAG) & CEO
Lufthansa Group

Key topics:

Exclusive A4E CEO debate The continued cost of “non-Europe” – which Sustainable-aviation policymaking: how
on sustainable aviation of bottlenecks are preventing consumers from EU airlines can lead the way despite
the future Ài>«ˆ˜}̅iLi˜iwÌÃœv>Ș}i>ۈ>̈œ˜ new proposals seeking to undermine
market and a more integrated Europe their decarbonisation efforts.

a4eaviationsummit.eu Airline Business readers save €75 with code: READER75

Sponsored by
 CONTENTS
Volume 197 Number 5719
21-27 JANUARY 2020

Hybrid Air Vehicles

Airlander production
design unveiled P21

NEWS COVER STORY

BEHIND THE HEADLINES 21-27 January 2020 I flightglobal.com

David Learmount 22 Has safety

peaked?
ANALYSIS

Crash
compiled our airline safety THIS WEEK course
Why tragedies in 2019

review of the accidents 6 Toulouse troubled by December rush The second 737 Max demand closer inspection

and incidents that were 7 Airbus hits output high as Boeing lags tragedy has prompted

Mulugeta Ayene/AP/Shutterstock
recorded during 2019 an urgent rethink of
8 UIA received no warnings, as Iran admits 737
(P22). And Max Kingsley- certification and training
shoot-down
Jones looks back at the priorities after a long
747’s service entry (P14). AIR TRANSPORT period of improving
10 Max messages paint ‘deeply disturbing’ accident statistics £3.90 Pole position After Gabriel
0 3
How Max grounding handed France converts to Falcon 8X
Airbus big deliveries lead 7 for SIGINT fleet renewal 17

picture at Boeing 9 770015 371310

12 A321 crew ‘unaware’ of threshold shift.

Dominic Perry/FlightGlobal

Nose-gear damaged in Nordwind hard landing

NEWS FOCUS
14 Jumbo service entry ushered in an aviation
game-changer

NEXT WEEK HELI-EXPO DEFENCE

In our show preview: 16 Leonardo masterstroke secures victory in

US Air Force
updates on Kopter’s SH09, US Navy trainer competition.
plus activities at Airbus Singaporean F-35B deal gains $2.75 billion
Helicopters and Bell Foreign Military Sales approval $3 billion contract to deliver up to 50 C-130Js P17
17 Multi-year contract lifts C-130J backlog.
France signals Gabriel successor plan with
adapted Falcon 8X procurement.
REGULARS Anti-radiation missile guided at Lightning II
5 Comment 18 Carrier debut advances LCA Navy trials
36 Straight & Level BUSINESS AVIATION
37 Letters 20 Falcon 2000 completes fleet upgrade at
40 Classified Dumont Aviation.
41 Jobs EHang powers on after debut US sortie
Boeing

43 Working Week 21 HAV pumped for production Airlander.

US court approves Tamarack reorganisation Five decades since jumbo jet entered service P14

nload the new

Download theCommercial Engines
2019 Commercial Directory
Engines Report
wnload The Engine Directory.
with enhanced
now dataenhanced
with updated and in-depth market
data and analysis
in-depth market analysis
htglobal.com/ComEngDirectory
ÀLJKWJOREDOFRPFRPPHQJLQHV
KWJOREDOFRPFRPPHQJLQHV
flightglobal.com 21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 3
CONTENTS

Image of
the week
Taken late last year, this
spectacular image shows a
Lockheed Martin C-130H
tactical transport from the
Wyoming Air National
Guard’s 153rd Airlift Wing
deploying flares during a
training flight. Cirium fleets
data shows there are
roughly 550 H-model
Hercules still in active use
worldwide

View more great aviation

shots online and in our
weekly tablet edition:

US Air National Guard

flightglobal.com/
flight-international

The week in numbers Question of the week

26%
Last week, we asked: Iran 737 crash?
You said:

Delta Air Lines

Total votes: 576
Delta Air Lines’ profit-sharing boost for employees will surge
to $1.6bn; 2019 full-year pre-tax profit grew 20% to $6.2bn
63%

A$1m
Truth will out
362 votes

Key evidence removed

Boeing 174 votes
30%
Sum donated by Boeing through the Australian Red Cross to
Cause unclear
support recovery and relief linked to the country’s wildfires 40 votes
7%

48m
In 2019, Munich airport traffic gained 4%, leading Germany
Munich airport
This week, we ask: Who will take delivery crown in 2020?
❑ Airbus as clear winner ❑ Honours even
❑ Boeing – via Max backlog
for growth and setting its 10th consecutive passenger record Vote at flightglobal.com

Stay up to date with the latest news and analysis from the global aviation and aerospace sector: flightglobal.com/news

Download the Military

Simulator Census online now.
CAE – Your worldwide training partner of choice ZZZȵLJKWJOREDOFRPPLOLVLP

4 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com


One of 22
Safety takes a hit
Boarding a scheduled commercial airline flight remains one of the least
risky activities in life, but a zero-fatility dream will probably remain just that
fter an encouraging series of airline safety
A figures recorded around the middle of the
last decade, some observers pondered wheth-
er the prospect of a fatality-free year could be a
realistic short-term ambition for the industry.
Sadly, and as detailed in our annual safety
report for 2019, such hopes may remain just
out of reach, despite – or sometimes as a re-
sult of – the influence of modern technology.
In broad terms, 2019 was a good year for
safety, with our data including information
on 22 fatal accidents, resulting in a combined
297 deaths. On the one hand this was an im-
provement from the previous year’s 543 fa-
talities, but on the other, it marked a notable
increase from 2018’s 14 qualifying accidents.
Looking at the combined figures for the
decade just gone, the yearly averages of just
over 19 accidents and 408 fatalities were re-
markable, given the immense number of
scheduled flights and passengers carried.
Closer inspection of last year’s losses
shows the statistical influence of passenger
jet accidents: three such crashes accounted
for 80% of all fatalities. These included an
Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 crash,
which killed all 157 aboard and prompted a
global grounding order which remains in
place for the re-engined narrowbody.
The ongoing response to the Max pro-
gramme’s second fatal accident places the sec-
tor in a potentially crucial holding position.
Key questions include whether cockpit auto-
mation has reached its current limit and wheth-
er the steps so far have – as well as making fly-
ing safer than ever – created a situation where a
flightglobal.com
COMMENT
No contest
hat’s wrong with a duopoly? Well,
W when one of the two protagonists
drops out, it turns into a monopoly.
That much can be discerned from last
year’s order and delivery totals, which
reveal a contest that never was.
From the moment that it became
apparent that the 737 Max grounding
Vladimir Tretyakov/AP/Shutterstock
would be lengthy, Airbus’s victory in
2019 was assured.
Toulouse will have gained additional
satisfaction from also taking Boeing’s
record for the highest number of aircraft
delivered in a year.
But even Airbus is at pains to point out
that the Max grounding and production
halt does no-one in aerospace any favours.
Customers like competition and there
is anecdotal evidence of delayed
procurement decisions due to the Max
being unavailable.
More crucially, suppliers are shared by
the airframers. And while the likes of
Spirit AeroSystems and CFM Internation-
worrying percentage of pilots cannot cope al will weather the current storm, you do
when such machine-provided assistance fails.
The dream of seeing zero passenger and
not have to descend too many levels of the
supply chain before you encounter
crew fatalities within a calendar year may re- companies for whom a 737 stoppage
main just that, while the global fleet is grow- becomes deeply problematic.
ing and more people are flying. Even the best But the news was not all bad for Boe-
pilots have bad days, and technical events ing. Although compensation for the Max
can conspire to cause mishaps. And as seen grounding will eventually reach an eye-
with the 737 Max, designers, engineers and watering total, cancellations caused by
regulators all can make mistakes which may the same event have so far been minimal.
ultimately have deadly consequences. And while Airbus retains a stranglehold
on the narrowbody segment, the opposite is
true in widebodies, where Seattle delivered
The first job of airliner 60% of the twin-aisle aircraft last year and
manufacturers and operators secured over two-thirds of the net orders.
Although its rival’s 217-unit twin-aisle
must be to minimise accidents’ gross order total was severely dented by
the axing of the A380 programme, 81 can-
likelihood and consequences cellations for the A350 will be a concern
for Airbus.
While it would be tempting to hope for a
Equally as inevitable are the unpredictable straight fight this year, don’t expect a true
world events that all too frequently result in side-by-side comparison until 2021. ■
hundreds of fatalities each year. Examples in- See This Week P7
clude the downing of a Ukraine International
Airlines 737-800 by Iranian surface-to-air mis-
siles in Tehran as this decade began. Such de-
liberate acts may be excluded from our annual
safety statistics, but cannot be overlooked.
The first job of airliner manufacturers and
Martin Lee/Shutterstock
operators alike must be to minimise
accidents’ likelihood and consequences and
resist adopting changes that could affect what
remains a fine balance between pilot skills
and cockpit automation. ■ Roll reversal
See Cover Story P22
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 5
THIS WEEK

BRIEFING

Airbus
KIEV RECEIVES INITIAL H125 PAIR
ROTORCRAFT Ukraine’s interior ministry has taken the first
two of an eventual 24 Airbus Helicopters H125s dating from a
2018 order. Received on 3 January, delivery of the light-
singles was advanced by six months at the customer’s request.
Kiev intends to use the initial pair for crew training, ahead of
the arrival of additional examples this year. Operated by
Ukraine’s State Border Guard Service, the H125s will be used
for territorial monitoring missions.
TRANSPORT
SUPER HORNET TRIALS NEW IRST POD
UPGRADE The US Navy has begun flying a Boeing F/A-18F BelugaXL shows sense of porpoise
Super Hornet with a Lockheed Martin infrared search and Airbus on 9 January began operations with the first A330-
track (IRST) Block II pod installed on its centreline stores based BelugaXL high-capacity transport. An eventual six
station. Boeing expects the new sensor to achieve initial examples will be built by 2023, as the airframer expands
operational capability soon after deliveries begin in 2021, as logistics capacity to aid production ramp-up. European
part of a broader Block III upgrade package for the navy’s certification was secured in November 2019, following a test
Super Hornet fleet. campaign of more than 700h across some 200 flights since the
first in July 2018. The Rolls-Royce Trent 700-powered aircraft
AMERICAN TARGETS JUNE FOR MAX RETURN – formally named A330-700L – has been developed to replace
SAFETY American Airlines says it does not expect the Airbus’s in-service fleet of five A300-600ST Belugas and
Boeing 737 Max to return to service before June, as the provides around 30% more capacity than its predecessor.
twinjet’s grounding extends into its 11th month. American says
that based on the latest guidance from the US regulator and
Boeing, it “anticipates that the resumption of scheduled
commercial service on American’s fleet of Boeing 737 Max DELIVERIES DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW LONDON
aircraft will occur June 4, 2020.” American, based in Dallas,
has 24 737 Max aircraft in storage and 76 more on order.

CALHOUN TAKES BOEING REINS

Toulouse troubled
MANAGEMENT David Calhoun on 13 January became
chief executive of Boeing, taking over from the departed
Dennis Muilenburg. “Working together, we will strengthen our
by December rush
safety culture, improve transparency and rebuild trust,” Despite concerted efforts, production backloaded into
Calhoun says. “I’m confident in the future of Boeing, including final month of the year continues to be issue for Airbus
the 737 Max.” Calhoun’s new role came after 10 years on the
company’s board of directors, holding the post of chair since
October 2019; that role has now gone to Lawrence Kellner. A irbus deliveries for the final
month of last year indicate
that the airframer has yet to
to 16.1% when the effect of A220
production is discounted.
This is above the figure of
GE CUTS STAFF IN RESPONSE TO 737 CRISIS restore the smooth production 15.3% – again adjusted for the
PROPULSION GE Aviation is laying off 70 temporary rates it achieved in the first half A220 – from 2018, revealing that
workers at its site in Bromont, Quebec – 13% of the facility’s of last decade. the backloading proportion actu-
total – citing Boeing’s decision to halt 737 Max production as While December has typically ally increased rather than fell.
one factor. Work at the plant encompasses the CFM been relatively busy in terms of Not only was the proportion
International Leap-1B engines that power the 737 Max. GE Airbus output, it managed to greater, but the manufacturer’s
Aviation is a 50% shareholder in CFM, along with France’s keep the proportion of deliveries increase in production rates
Safran. “A key priority is protecting our ability to ramp for the month to around 10-14% meant that it equated to a greater
production back up,” the manufacturer says. from 2010-2015. number of aircraft in 2019 than
But technical snags and in- the same proportion would have
LOSSES MOUNT AT KUWAIT AIRWAYS dustrial problems that emerged covered in 2018.
FINANCIAL Kuwait Airways’ latest full-year financial figures as the manufacturer embarked The December 2019 delivery
show the airline’s losses worsened to KD131.9 million ($435 on its transition to the A320neo level is below the 17.7% of
million) – over $17 million in losses for every aircraft in its fleet. family in 2016 have tended to December 2017 but similar to
Revenues for the year to 31 December 2019 rose by 10%, to force a backloading of deliveries. that of December 2016, showing
KD344 million, and employee costs were slashed by 11%, but It has recently been striving to that Airbus – for the fourth year
the airline was burdened by a sharp rise in its fuel expenditure, overcome production complexi- running – was forced to deal with
up by more than a third, and maintenance costs also doubled. ties relating to the A321neo. an intense end-of-year rush.
Operating loss for the year soared by 40% to KD120 million, Airbus handed over 16% of its Airbus delivered 138 aircraft
while the net loss was up 25%, to KD131.9 million. 863 deliveries for 2019 during De- in December 2019, including
cember – a figure that rises slightly seven from the A220 line. ■

6 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com

 UIA received no
warnings, as Iran
admits 737
THIS WEEK
shoot-down
This Week P8

ANALYSIS MAX KINGSLEY-JONES LONDON

Airbus hits output high as Boeing lags

With Seattle’s figures dragged down by ongoing Max crisis, European manufacturer moves decisively ahead of rival
ombined orders and deliver- Airbus vs Boeing orders and deliveries, 2010-2019
C ies across the two mainline
OEMs plummeted in 2019,
Deliveries Net orders
1,000 3,000
dragged down by the effects of the
737 Max grounding on Boeing’s 800 2,500
single-aisle performance.
The Max production halt also 600 2,000
ensured Airbus became the new
400 1,500
record holder for airliner output.
Overall, net orders for Airbus 1,000
200
and Boeing declined by 50% on
2018’s total, to 822 aircraft, while 0 500
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
total deliveries fell by more than
a fifth to 1,243 units. With Max
Airbus deliveries Boeing deliveries Combined net orders
activity effectively in limbo for Source: Manufacturers
the last nine months of 2019,
Boeing’s total net orders across all Max deliveries were suspended from 747 in 2018. It also powered in 2019 and secured over two-
its products declined by more shortly after the Ethiopian Air- to a new industry production re- thirds of the net orders. Its perfor-
than 90%, to 54 units, while de- lines accident on 10 March, and cord – taking the honours from mance was aided by strong sales
liveries were halved to 380 air- the grounding and ongoing crisis long-time holder Boeing, with a of the 787 and 767 freighter.
craft. For reference, the manufac- has blunted the airframer’s sales total of 863 deliveries, including a Despite this, Airbus can boast
turer’s guidance a year ago was to activities for the new 737 family. full year’s contribution from the the best-selling aircraft in the
deliver 895-905 aircraft in 2019. The Max net order tally was A220. The previous record of 806 twin-aisle category last year in
Boeing delivered just 57 Max significantly in the red, by 73 air- deliveries was set by Boeing in the A330neo, which took 99 net
aircraft in 2019, compared with craft, as a result of cancellations, 2018. The manufacturer dropped orders, including a 23 December
256 in 2018. Overall, 737 deliv- although the majority were related behind Airbus in delivery terms deal for 40 aircraft from an un-
eries fell to 127 aircraft (from to the collapse of Jet Airways. for the first time since 2011. named customer.
580 in 2018), including the final Airbus enjoyed a slight rise in Toulouse enjoyed a slight in-
70 737NGs. net orders last year, to 768 aircraft crease across its A320 family in SALES PERFORMANCE
deliveries, rising to a new record However, the European airfram-
Airbus/Boeing deliveries, orders and backlog of 642 aircraft. Airbus also er’s sales performance in the
2019 2018 improved sales across the A320 sector was contaminated by the
Deliveries Net Orders Backlog* Deliveries Net Orders
family – net orders rose by over decision to end the A380 pro-
100 aircraft compared with 2018. gramme, which resulted in 70
Airbus
The success was powered by the cancellations and dragged its
A220** 48 63 495 20 135
largest variant, the A321neo – widebody net order total down to
A320ceo 91 -8 66 240 10
which also gained the new XLR just 51 aircraft.
A320neo 551 662 6,002 386 531 model during the year – with 476 The overall backlog declined by
A330ceo 12 -10 38 46 9 net orders in total. 400 aircraft during the year, to just
A330neo 41 99 293 3 18 Despite its woes in the narrow- over 13,100 units. Airbus remains
A350 112 32 579 93 40 body sector, Boeing still has the market leader, having slightly
A380 8 -70 9 12 4 widebody bragging rights: Seattle increased its share of the backlog
Total 863 768 7,482 800 747 delivered 60% of all widebodies to 57% since the end of 2018. ■
Boeing***
737NG 70 22 40 324 -24
737 Max 57 -73 4,545 256 699
747 7 0 17 6 18
767 43 26 94 27 40
777 45 14 74 48 51
777X 0 -17 309 0 0
787 158 82 546 145 109
Total 380 54 5,625 806 893
Total 1,243 822 13,107 1,606 1,640
* 31 December 2019
Airbus

** 2018 A220 deliveries/orders data only comprises transactions since Airbus acquired control of CSeries
*** Boeing net orders calculated by year-on-year backlog changes and gross orders
Data includes corporate and military versions. Source: Manufacturers
Best-selling twin-aisle of year was A330neo (top right) with 99 orders

flightglobal.com 21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 7

THIS WEEK

DISASTER DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW LONDON

UIA received no warnings, as

Iran admits 737 shoot-down
Tehran did not advise of any risk in hours before missiles were fired, Ukrainian carrier says

kraine International Airlines
U (UIA) insists it received no
warnings or information on opera-
tional restrictions before one of its
Boeing 737-800s was shot down
shortly after departure from Teh-
ran’s Imam Khomeini airport.
Newly-appointed president
Yevhenii Dykhne, thrust into the
crisis less than four months after
taking over the airline, says: “At
the moment of departure, when
the aircraft took off from [Kiev
Borispol] we had no information
about any upcoming threats.”
“When the aircraft took off
from Tehran – the same. We had
no information on any looming
threat, so we made no decision,
because we had no reason. No
administration, no civil agency,
issued any warnings.”
Three days after flight PS752,
bound for Kiev on 8 January, came
down some 5min after taking off –
killing all 176 on board – the Ira-
nian government conceded, in the
wake of mounting evidence from
international intelligence agen-
cies, that its armed forces had un-
intentionally fired on the jet.
Iranian president Hassan Rou-
hani issued a formal statement
that laced humility with an air of
political justification, calling the
loss of the Ukrainian aircraft a
“disastrous error”.
“[This] unfortunately led to
this terrible catastrophe taking
the lives of dozens of innocent Vincennes, whose crew – at a
people because of human error
and mistaken shooting,” he says.
time of heightened tension and
US-Iranian military skirmishes –
But he also couches the state- had mistaken the aircraft for an
ment with justification, pointing inbound Iranian Grumman F-14.
out that the incident took place in Reagan stated, on the day the
an “atmosphere of threats and of attack, that the Vincennes had
intimidation” by an “aggressive appeared to be undertaking a
American regime”, with its “proper defensive action” when
armed forces on “full alert” to he acknowledged that the Iranian
protect against a possible US airliner had been shot down over
military offensive. the Strait of Hormuz.
Having opened with defensive
“This terrible remarks condemning the US
stance, Rouhani continued with
catastrophe [took] the considerable contrition and even
an initial apology for the situation.
lives of innocent “The Islamic Republic of Iran is
people because of deeply sorry [for] this disastrous
mistake,” he says, adding that the
human error” accident was “not something that
Hassan Rouhani can be easily overlooked”.
President, Islamic Republic of Iran Rouhani also refers to prose- banned Ukrainian services from
cution of the “perpetrators of operating in Iranian airspace
this unforgivable mistake” and from midnight on 9 January,
His statement was designed to the adoption of measures to citing the “unexplained circum-
offload some of the responsibili- address “weaknesses of the stances” of the 737 crash.
ty onto the US administration, country’s defence systems” to
and has parallels with US presi- prevent a repetition. PREVENTATIVE ACTION
dent Ronald Reagan’s response He subsequently declared, on While the airline has defended its
to the US Navy’s inadvertent 14 January, that a special court, decision to operate the flight, cit-
missile attack on Iran Air flight with a senior judge, should be ing the absence of warnings, the
IR655 in July 1988, an event established to oversee the inquiry is likely to examine
which remains one of the most “unusual” case. whether adequate preventative
contentious in the two sides’ While the US Federal Aviation action was taken by all sides.
fractious relationship. Administration had prohibited The loss of PS752 marks –
In that incident, an Airbus US carriers from operating in Iran somewhat extraordinarily – the
A300 was brought down in the on 7 January, UIA has pointed third time in less than 20 years
Gulf by the warship USS out that several carriers were still that Ukrainian authorities have
operating flights from Tehran on found themselves under pres-
the day of the crash. sure in the aftermath of a fatal
The airline points out that surface-to-air missile attack on a
PS752 was operating a similar civil airliner.
flight profile to other services – Dutch investigators chided
including flights by Aeroflot, Ukrainian regulators after flight
Austrian Airlines and Turkish MH17, a Malaysia Airlines 777-
Airlines – which had departed 200ER, was shot down over con-
Ebrahim Noroozi/AP/Shutterstock;

Tehran between midnight and flict-hit east Ukraine in July 2014.

06:12 on 8 January, the time at
which the 737 took off.
“Flight safety has always been
and remains the number one pri-
ority for UIA,” the carrier insists.
Iranian government conceded its armed forces had fired on the jet Ukraine’s state aviation service
The region had been subject to
restrictions but only up to a spe-
cific cruise altitude, even though
the inquiry into the attack stated
that Ukraine had “sufficient rea-
son to close the entire airspace”

8 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com


as a precaution – particularly
because powerful long-range
weapons were being used against
military aircraft.
In the wake of MH17’s de-
struction ICAO established a
conflict zone repository, which
was intended to serve as a
centralised database of conflict
information that airlines could
use to refine assessments of risks
to flight operations.
flightglobal.com
Max messages
paint ‘deeply
disturbing’ picture
at Boeing
Air Transport P10
Penetration damage is consistent with high-energy fragmentation
Ukrainian authorities had also
been at the centre of a third mis-
sile attack on a civil airliner in
October 2001 – this time as the
party directly culpable – when a
Sibir Tupolev Tu-154M, en route
from Tel Aviv to Novosibirsk,
was inadvertently shot down
over the Black Sea.
The Tu-154 crashed into the sea
after being hit by an S-200V anti-
aircraft missile launched from
near the Crimean port of Feodosia
during a Ukrainian military exer-
Ukraine President’s Office
Inquiry is likely
cise, according to a Russian minis-
to examine whether
try of transport inquiry.
adequate preventative
Images from the Ukrainian
action was taken
presidential office purporting to
show wreckage from the crashed
But the repository, launched UIA 737 indicate penetration
in 2015, operated for less than damage – with puncture holes in
two years before ICAO ques- the order of 10mm (0.4in) diame-
tioned its value, noting a signifi- ter – consistent with high-energy
cant decline in the amount of in- fragmentation from an explosion,
formation being submitted and although they give little informa-
pointing out that appropriate tion as to the primary detonation
data was being made available to point relative to the airframe.
civil aviation outside of the re- Dutch aerospace laboratory
pository. ICAO’s council in- NLR’s analysis of damage to Ma-
structed in 2017 that the reposi- laysia Airlines flight MH17
tory be discontinued. found warhead fragmentation
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 9
THIS WEEK
Ukraine President’s Office
punctures of 6-14mm, and typi-
cally around 11mm.
Iran’s Civil Aviation Organisa-
tion has apologised for “inconsist-
ency” of information, after it ini-
tially “strongly and persuasively”
rejected theories that a missile
was responsible for the crash.
ADMISSION OF GUILT
“It is now clear that the reality
was exactly what the organisa-
tion denied,” it admits. “We were
under no pressure, no advice to
conceal the truth, and we had no
intentions of hiding the truth.
We’ve released information that
we believed in and we’re sorry
for the confusion.”
Ukrainian president Volody-
myr Zelensky is insisting on an
“official apology” from Iran,
through diplomatic channels, for
the incident, as well as a trans-
parent investigation, repatriation
of the victims, and compensation
for the loss.
“Iran has pleaded guilty to
[destroying] the Ukrainian air-
craft,” he says. “But we insist on
full admission of guilt.” ■
AIR TRANSPORT
SAFETY JON HEMMERDINGER BOSTON & PILAR WOLFSTELLER SAN FRANCISCO
Max messages paint ‘deeply
disturbing’ picture at Boeing
Trove of emails released by airframer illustrate attitude to oversight of jet’s development
oeing has released more than
B 100 pages of documents to
the US Congress, including
internal text messages and
emails that mock airline
customers, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and other
regulators, which were sent as
the airframer navigated the
certification process of the now-
grounded 737 Max.
The messages, which contain
foul language and disparaging
remarks, were immediately criti-
cised by Peter DeFazio, chair of
the House Committee on Trans-
portation and Infrastructure.
“These newly released emails
are incredibly damning,”
DeFazio said on 9 January. “They
paint a deeply disturbing picture
of the lengths Boeing was appar-
ently willing to go to in order to
evade scrutiny from regulators,
flightcrews and the flying public,
even as its own employees were
sounding alarms internally.”
Boeing responded with an
apology for the language used
and the sentiments expressed.
“These communications con-
tain provocative language, and,
in certain instances, raise ques-
tions about Boeing’s interactions
with the FAA in connection
with the simulator qualification
process,” says the airframer.
“These communications do not
reflect the company we are and
need to be, and they are
completely unacceptable.”
NOTHING NEW
However, Boeing can at least
take minor comfort that the
emails do not contain anything
new related to the safety of the
737 Max itself. The FAA says
that its experts “determined that
nothing in the submission point-
ed to any safety risks that were
not already identified as part of
the ongoing review of proposed
modifications to the aircraft”.
10 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020
“While the tone and content of
some of the language contained
in the documents is disappoint-
ing, the FAA remains focused on
following a thorough process for
returning the Boeing 737 Max to
passenger service,” the agency
says. “We continue to work with
other international aviation safe-
ty regulators to review the pro-
posed changes to the aircraft. Our
first priority is safety, and we
have set no timeframe for when
the work will be completed.”
The documents, released to the
media on 9 January, were redact-
ed, with names of the conversa-
tion participants blanked out.
In one conversation, dated
28 March 2017, a Boeing employ-
ee identified only as “737 chief
technical pilot” wrote to a col-
league that the company would
reject any regulator’s requirement
for simulator training when tran-
sitioning from the 737NG to the
737 Max.
Pilot Mark Forkner had been
identified in previous email cor-
respondence as “737 chief tech-
nical pilot”. However, it is
DeFazio says documents
show Seattle was willing to
evade regulatory scrutiny
unclear whether he also authored
these emails. Forkner now works
for Southwest Airlines.
“I want to stress the impor-
tance of holding firm that there
will not be any type of simulator
training required to transition
from NG to Max. Boeing will not
allow that to happen. We’ll go
face-to-face with any regulator
who tries to make that a require-
ment,” the pilot writes.
NO SIMULATOR
Later, on 6 June 2017, the “737
chief technical pilot” wrote to an
airline customer that no simula-
tor training should be required
when pilots transfer from the NG to require your pilots to require a
to the Max. Max simulator to begin flying
That airline, which appears to the Max,” Boeing’s chief techni-
have been based in Indonesia, in- cal pilot writes. “Once the en-
tended to have its pilots complete gines are started, there is only
simulator training and classroom one difference between NG and
computer-based training before Max procedurally, and that is
transitioning, messages show. that there is no OFF position of
The emails mention “Jakarta the gear handle. Boeing does not
time” and “DGCA”, the acronym understand what is to be gained
of Indonesia’s Directorate Gener- by a 3h simulator session, when
al of Civil Aviation. the procedures are essentially
“There is absolutely no reason the same.”
In a related email, the chief
technical pilot says simulator
time would create “a difficult and
unnecessary training burden for
your airline, as well as potential-
ly establish a precedent in your
region for other Max customers”.
After the airline confirmed it
would not require additional
simulator training, on 7 June, the
Boeing pilot wrote to a colleague,
“Looks like my Jedi mind trick
worked again!”
The colleague responded:
“Haha, I’ll send you to negotiate
piece [sic] in the Middle East
next.”
In the meantime, following
Susan Walsh/AP/Shutterstock
two fatal accidents and the air-
craft’s grounding, now in its 10th
month, Boeing recently advised
that pilots should complete flight
simulator training before
flightglobal.com

returning to the cockpit of the
737 Max.
In another conversation, dated
12 December 2017, one employ-
ee refers to India’s civil aviation
authority as “even stupider”.
The same employee says later in
the conversation: “I’m drinking,
obviously”.
On 8 February 2018, one col-
league asks another: “Would you
put your family on a Max simula-
tor-trained aircraft? I wouldn’t.”
MANUFACTURING JON HEMMERDINGER BOSTON
Spirit lays off almost 3,000 staff due to 737 production halt
Spirit AeroSystems, the supplier of
Boeing 737 fuselages, is laying off
2,800 workers in January and will
make additional cuts in the coming
weeks in response to its customer’s
halt of 737 Max production.
The initial cuts affect workers
in Wichita and represent 22% of
the company’s 13,000-strong
workforce in the Kansas city,
Spirit says.
The affected staff will start leav-
ing the company on 22 January.
“Spirit is taking this action be-
cause of the 737 Max production
suspension and ongoing uncer-
tainty regarding the timing of
when production will resume and
flightglobal.com
Nose-gear
damaged in
Nordwind landing
Air Transport P12
The colleague answers: “No”.
In other messages, the corre-
spondents complain about the
FAA’s “whining”, and internal
processes that slowed develop-
ment of the twinjet.
In messages from 2013, Boeing
employees discuss the comp-
any’s decision to refer to the
737 Max’s Maneuvering Charac-
teristics Augmentation System
(MCAS) as part of the Max’s
speed-trim system.
the level of production when it
does resume,” the company says.
It also expects that Boeing will
resume 737 production at a lower
level than previously expected, as
the airframer works through its
backlog of complete but stored
aircraft.
Spirit plans to “implement
smaller workforce reductions later
this month” in Tulsa and
McAlester, Oklahoma, it adds.
Futher cuts may be required,
depending on Boeing’s eventual
output, it says. The firm, which
employs about 18,000 workers
globally, has been particularly hit
by issues affecting the 737 Max.
AIR TRANSPORT
In another email on 1  June
2018, a Boeing employee de-
scribes the airframer’s culture as
corrupted by a leadership team
obsessed with meeting project
deadlines. “It’s systemic. It’s cul-
ture,” the employee writes to a
colleague. “It’s the fact that we
have a senior leadership team
that understand very little about
the business and yet are driving
us to certain objectives.”
On 20 September 2016, one
writer says of the 737 Max: “This
is a joke,” and “this airplane is
ridiculous”.
A few months later, on
24  April the following year, an
employee wrote, “this airplane is
designed by clowns who in turn
are supervised by monkeys.”
Elaine Thompson/AP/Shutterstock
They call the design of the air-
craft “piss poor”.
In May 2018, an employee tells
another that they still “haven’t
Manufacturer will shortly stop
been forgiven by God for the cov-
building re-engined type
ering up [that] I did last year”.
They add: “Can’t do it one
Framing MCAS, which was more time. The Pearly Gates will
new to the Max, as part of an be closed…” The colleague
existing system would avoid responds: “I just received a shov-
“driving additional work due to el to start my journey to the
training impacts and mainte- hotter place...”
nance manual expansions”, the
messages say. PUBLICLY RELEASED
MCAS is the automated flight Boeing says it “proactively” gave
control software that contributed the communications to the FAA
to two fatal crashes of 737 Max 8s in December, and provided
in October 2018 and March 2019, copies to House and Senate
respectively flown by Lion Air committees. Boeing released the
and Ethiopian Airlines. documents publicly “at the
encouragement of” DeFazio and
Senator Roger Wicker, chairman
of the Senate Committee on
Science, Commerce and
Transportation.
Spirit makes about 70% of the “We regret the content of these
Max’s structures, and the communications, and apologise
programme accounted for more to the FAA, Congress, our airline
than half of Spirit’s $7.2 billion customers, and to the flying pub-
revenue in 2018. lic,” Boeing says, adding it has
“We continue to work with responded with an internal reor-
Boeing to develop a new produc- ganisation, among other changes,
tion schedule for 2020 with an aimed at improving safety.
eye toward minimising disruption, “The language used in these
maintaining the stability of our communications, and some of
production capabilities, and best the sentiments they express, are
positioning Spirit for the future,” inconsistent with Boeing values,
chief executive Tom Gentile says. and the company is taking appro-
“When production levels priate action in response. This
increase sufficiently in the future, will ultimately include discipli-
we look forward to recalling nary or other personnel action,
employees impacted by today’s once the necessary reviews are
announcement.” ■ completed.” ■
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 11
AIR TRANSPORT

INQUIRY DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW LONDON

A321 crew ‘unaware’ of threshold shift

Pilots made low approach at London Stansted by conducting standard arrival despite air traffic control instructions
ilots of a SmartLynx Airbus
P A321 conducted a low
approach to London Stansted
because its crew had not realised
that a revised arrival procedure,
with a displaced threshold, was
in place.
The aircraft had been ap-
proaching runway 22 at night on
22 July last year.
Repair work had been taking
place at the threshold and the ILS
for the runway was unavailable,
says the UK Air Accidents Inves-
tigation Branch.
As a result a displaced thresh-
old – shifted by some 800m
(2,620ft) – was in place and a
steeper revised area navigation
approach, designated RNAV22C,
had been devised.
Cirium fleets data indicates the
A321 (YL-LCQ) had been operat-
ing for Thomas Cook Airlines at
the time.
The inquiry says the pilots
“had not realised” that the ap-
proach had been amended and
flew “lower than expected” over
the works area, touching down
close to the displaced threshold.
Air traffic controllers had
made “repeated references” to
the RVAV22C arrival while the
A321 crew was on the terminal
controller’s radio frequency.
But the pilots were unaware
that they were supposed to
follow the RNAV22C procedure
and instead flew the standard
RNAV arrival, anchored to the
threshold of runway 22.
As the aircraft approached
4nm (7.4km) from touchdown
the controller gave landing clear-
ance, warning of the displaced
threshold and instructing the
crew not to fly below the preci-
sion-approach path indicator
(PAPI) light signals – which had
been set to a steeper approach,
3.5°, than the normal 3°.
But the airline reported,
according to the inquiry, that its
pilots had misinterpreted this in-
struction as meaning that they
should not follow the PAPI lights.
Visibility at the time of the
incident was good.
“The crew appeared to have
exhibited a degree of confirma-
tion bias,” says the inquiry.
“They were expecting a standard
RNAV arrival and did not
perceive the cues directing them
to fly the alternative procedure.”
It points out that, although the
controller consistently referred to
the approach as RNAV22C, the
A321 pilots replied simply with
“RNAV approach” in almost all
their readbacks. ■

INCIDENT DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW LONDON

Nose-gear damaged in
Nordwind hard landing
ne of Russian carrier Nord-
O wind Airlines’ Airbus
A321s has suffered serious nose-
gear damage after a hard landing
at Turkey’s Antalya airport.
The carrier says the aircraft had
been conducting the flight from
Moscow Sheremetyevo without
passengers on 10 January.
“While conducting a go-
around, due to windshear, a hard
landing occurred,” Nordwind
says. Inspection of the jet after its
arrival revealed it had sustained
damage to the nose-gear, it adds.
Images indicate that the under-
side of the fuselage in the area has
been badly crumpled, and ele-
Flight was being
conducted without
passengers
United Aircraft
ments of the nose-gear assembly
have been pushed up through the
cabin floor behind the cockpit.
An unverified, but outwardly
authentic, load report from the
aircraft (VQ-BRS) indicates it ex-
perienced a 2.64g landing. It ac-
companies a pilot’s report that
states the twinjet had conducted
a stable approach to runway 36C
before the hard landing, which
the report attributes to windshear
at the threshold.
During the go-around the air- PROGRAMME
craft experienced instrument
problems and the pilots declared
Ilyushin takes shape as wing joined
an emergency before carrying out Ilyushin has transferred the first test-flight Il-96-400M airframe
a visual approach and landing. ■ to a final assembly line where it will be fitted with control sys-
tems and its cabin interior. Fuselage mating and attachment of
the primary wing structure is complete. The prototype of the
four-engined transport is intended to be finished before the
end of this year, at which point it will be sent for ground testing.
Yuri Grudnin, chief executive of Ilyushin parent company
United Aircraft’s transport aviation division, says the first flight is
set to take place in 2021. “Work on the programme for
creating the new Il-96-400M is on schedule,” he says. The
aircraft will be available in three basic versions – a three-class
305-seat layout, a 350-seat two-class layout, and a high-density
AirTeamImages

402-seat all-economy configuration for the charter market.

12 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com

NEWS FOCUS
DEBUT MAX KINGSLEY-JONES LONDON
Jumbo service entry ushered
in an aviation game-changer
This week marks exactly 50 years since the 747’s first passenger service with Pan Am
ver the past year, much has
O been made about the 50th
anniversary of the airliner that
changed the world – Boeing’s 747
“jumbo jet”. But that jumbo revo-
lution did not begin in earnest
until the type carried its first fare-
paying passengers – a historic
milestone that took place 50
years ago this week.
Appropriately it was the 747’s
prime sponsor – Pan Am – that
launched the jumbo into service,
on a flight from New York JFK
airport to London Heathrow.
That historic flight departed the
US city in the early hours of 22
January 1970, arriving in Lon-
don around 7h 20min later. But
that introductory service was far
from smooth – and the disrup-
tion had nothing to do with the
aircraft’s size.
The 747 era had gone from
Boeing 747 cumulative annual deliveries
2,000
1969
First 747
1,500
delivery 747SP enters
(Pan Am)
1,000
500
0
69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1972
747-200F
enters service
Passenger
14 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020
drawing board to reality in an ex-
tremely compressed timeframe.
The first aircraft rolled out of its
new purpose-built production
facility at Everett, north of Seattle,
Washington, in September 1968 –
just two years after the go-ahead in
July 1966.
That initial airframe took to the
air on 9 February 1969 – slightly
later than hoped – but an intense
flight-test programme involving
five 747-100s ensured that US
Federal Aviation Administration
approval was secured by year-end,
with a whole day to spare.
INITIAL HANDOVERS
Keen to get on with preparations
for service entry, Boeing deliv-
ered the first two 747s to Pan Am
along with two to TWA in De-
cember 1969, as the carriers pre-
pared for the imminent intro-
Total passenger deliveries: 1,226
Total freighter deliveries: 329
Total deliveries: 1,555
1992
1976 Last 747 Classic
delivered
service
1983
747-300
introduced 1989
747-400
enters service
First flight was delayed into
early hours of 22 January
by engine problems
duction of an aircraft that would
more than double the size of
their aviation hardware.
One of Pan Am’s 747s gave
Londoners a glimpse of the future
on 12 January 1970, when
N735PA Clipper Constitution
operated a proving flight from
New York to Heathrow with 362
passengers on board as part of a
planned European tour. In a news
report entitled “The 747 arrives”,
Flight wrote: “This week’s prov-
ing flight was made with an air-
craft which does not yet incorpo-
rate the engine modifications.
The 747 arrived about 3hr late,
after an engine had had to be
changed before take-off.”
This was a foretaste of what
was to come, as “engine troubles
and bad weather resulted in the the 747 departed the next day,
cancellation of the rest of the some 23hr late, heading for
five-capital European tour, and New York”.
2017
Final passenger
747 delivered
2009
Last 747-400F
delivered
1993 2004
1,000th 747 Last
2011
delivered (SIA) passenger
747-8 enters
747-400
delivered service
Source: FlightGlobal analysis/Cirium fleets data (end 2019)
Note: Passenger data includes combi/convertibles
Freighter
flightglobal.com

But it was not powerplant con-
cerns that became a potential
pacing item for the 747’s debut.
Rather, it was the successful
completion of the evacuation
demonstration. The first attempts
on 15 January 1970 at Pan Am’s
Roswell, New Mexico, 747 train-
ing base raised issues with emer-
gency lighting and slide deploy-
ments and required some quick
fixes. Success came six days later
on 21 January and the green light
shone for the jumbo’s planned
debut service that evening.
Pan Am offered up its proving-
flight aircraft, N735PA, for the
747’s inaugural flight PA2 to Lon-
don. This aircraft had been re-
named Clipper Young America
by the wife of President Richard
Nixon in a ceremony at Washing-
ton Dulles the week before.
DELAYED TAKE-OFF
Commanding the historic inaugu-
ral flight would be Pan Am’s At-
lantic division chief, Captain
Weeks, assisted by Captain John
Nolan. Once the jet’s 22 crew were
satisfied that the 345 passengers
were strapped in and Young
flightglobal.com
Multi-year contract
lifts C-130J backlog
Defence P17
Boeing
America was ready to go, it
pushed back at 19:30. This was al-
ready around 30min late – and
things grew worse when a prob-
lem with the No 4 Pratt & Whitney
JT9D forced a return to the gate.
After investigation identified
potential internal engine damage,
sister ship N736PA was substi-
tuted and Clipper Victor finally
departed at 01:52 on 22 January,
arriving at Heathrow at 14:02.
Sadly, that historic airframe
would gain notoriety in a tragic
way seven years later, when it
was involved in a ground colli-
sion with another 747 at Tenerife,
which remains the world’s worst
air accident.
The launch of services trig-
gered a production frenzy in
Everett, with Boeing delivering
92 747s in the first full year (plus
the four at the end of 1969). This
would remain the apogee of
jumbo output over the next
five decades.
Cirium fleets data shows that
during 1970, alongside 747 pio-
neers Pan Am and TWA, a further
13 airlines took their first 747s,
namely: Air France, Alitalia,
American Airlines, BOAC (which
became British Airways), Conti-
nental Airlines, Delta Air Lines,
Iberia, Japan Airlines (JAL), Luf-
thansa, National Airlines, North-
west Airlines, Sabena, and United
Airlines. Many of these operators
went on to be among the largest
747 customers.
JAL became the biggest of them
all, taking a total of 106 new air-
craft from Boeing between 1970
and 2001. Indeed, the 747 would
prove a huge export success for
the airframer, with four-fifths of
production ultimately going to
non-US airlines.
But after the initial production
flurry, the global recession of the
early 1970s quickly affected
Boeing and output fell, dropping
to just 21 aircraft in 1975. By
then, production of the original
747-100 passenger version had
been supplemented by the heavi-
er -200 series and an all-cargo
variant. Boeing was also expand-
ing the powerplant portfolio,
adding GE Aviation and Rolls-
Royce options to the original
P&W offering.
The ultra-long-range 747SP ar-
rived in 1976 and a stretched
upper deck variant, the -300, was
introduced in 1983, providing a
useful increase in capacity. This
variant provided the platform for
a major update, the -400, which
was launched by Northwest
Airlines in 1985 and entered ser-
vice in 1989. Earlier versions
were retrospectively designated
“747 Classics”.
In 1993, Boeing rolled out the
1,000th 747, a -400 passenger
Launch customer Pan Am receives its first 747 in December 1969
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 15
NEWS FOCUS
aircraft for Singapore Airlines,
by which time a new family of
stretched derivatives was al-
ready under study.
However, the proposed
“-500X/600X” studies came to
nothing, and after several more
false starts Boeing finally
launched a major stretched vari-
ant in 2005 to counter the Airbus
A380. Dubbed the -8I/8F, this de-
rivative family combined power
from GE Aviation GEnx engines
with significant updates and im-
provements to the wing.
FREIGHT FIRST
Although Boeing secured several
blue-chip customers for the -8I
passenger variant, the prime
focus was the freighter market.
Deliveries began of the -8F
freighter in 2011 to Cargolux and
of the -8I passenger model to
Lufthansa in 2012. Production of
the latter variant ceased in 2017
after just 47 aircraft had been
delivered – including two to
be prepared for the US presiden-
tial flight.
At the beginning of 2020,
deliveries of the 747-8 family are
approaching 140 aircraft. Output
is now continuing at a low rate, to
clear the remaining backlog of
around 17 aircraft as  the sun
sets on the iconic airliner after
more than 1,550 examples have
been produced.
But when 747 production in-
evitably ends in a couple of years,
it will not go unnoticed in Seattle
that Airbus will have already
turned out the lights at the A380
plant in Toulouse. ■
Boeing
DEFENCE
ENHANCEMENT
GARRETT REIM LOS ANGELES
SABR sharpens
F-16’s senses for
homeland duty
ork to install an active elec-
W tronically scanned array
(AESA) radar on a first US Air
National Guard (ANG) Lockheed
Martin F-16 has finished at Joint
Base Andrews in Maryland.
The US Air Force fitted the
Northrop Grumman APG-83 scal-
able agile beam radar (SABR), the
company confirmed on 9 January.
The recipient aircraft will be used
as part of an effort to declare initial
operational capability with the
sensor on the ANG fleet, it adds.
ANG-operated F-16s are nor-
mally stationed within the USA
and are used to protect national
airspace, but the aircraft are
sometimes called up to support
overseas missions.
“The greater bandwidth, speed
and agility of the APG-83 enables
the F-16 to detect, track and iden-
tify a greater number of targets
faster and at longer ranges,”
Northrop says.
“In addition, it features all-
weather, high-resolution synthet-
ic aperture radar mapping, to
present the pilot with more pre-
cise target identification com-
pared to legacy systems.” ■
AQUISITION GARRETT REIM LOS ANGELES
Singaporean F-35B deal gains $2.75bn approval
n estimated $2.75 billion
A Foreign Military Sales pro-
gramme deal with Singapore for
up to 12 Lockheed Martin F-35Bs
US Marine Corps already employs short take-off and landing variant
16 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020
AWARD GARRETT REIM LOS ANGELES
Leonardo masterstroke wins
US Navy trainer competition
Service selects single-engined AW119 derivative over rival Airbus and Bell candidates
T he US Navy (USN) has or-
dered an initial batch of Leon-
ardo Helicopters TH-119s to begin
replacing its Bell TH-57B/C Sea
Ranger trainer fleet. The service
announced the winner of its
Advanced Helicopter Training
System competition on 13 Janu-
ary, with the single-engined type
to carry the designation TH-73A.
Leonardo’s base contract is val-
ued at $177 million for 32 air-
craft, while the navy’s full re-
quirement is for 130 rotorcraft
worth $648 million.
The USN expects deliveries to
begin this year, with shipments to
continue through 2024.
“The new firm fixed-price
TH-73A contract was awarded on
a best-value trade-off basis with a
base and three one-year options,”
says the service.
Once operational, the helicop-
ters will be used to train several
hundred aviation students per
year at NAS Whiting Field in Mil-
ton, Florida. The service plans to
use the TH-73A fleet to train USN,
US Marine Corps and US Coast
Guard pilots until beyond 2050.
has gained approval from the US
Department of State.
Outlined by the US Defense
Security Cooperation Agency
US Marine Corps
Airframer will deliver an
eventual 130 TH-73As
The deal is a hard-fought win
for Leonardo, which defeated
Bell’s single-engined 407GXi and
Airbus Helicopters’ H135 light-
twin. Leonardo will produce the
TH-73A in Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, where it manufactures the
civilian AW119 from which the
military trainer is derived.
A key requirement during the
competition involved Leonardo
submitting its candidate for in-
strument flight rules approval.
The US Federal Aviation Admin-
istration granted supplemental
type certification for this capabil-
ity in July 2019.
(DSCA) on 9 January, the potential
deal would be for an initial four
aircraft, plus eight options. Singa-
pore in January 2019 announced
plans to obtain a small number of
F-35s for an evaluation activity.
The proposed deal also would
include one spare Pratt & Whit-
ney F135 engine, electronic war-
fare equipment, spare parts and
use of the US type’s Autonomic
Logistics Information System and
global support framework.
Short take-off and vertical
landing F-35Bs have already
been delivered to the US Marine
Leonardo Helicopters
The TH-73A will be powered
by a 1,000shp (746kW) P&W Can-
ada PT6B37A turboshaft.
The navy deal represents the
second major rotorcraft success
for Leonardo with the US Depart-
ment of Defense within the past
18 months. In September 2018,
prime contractor Boeing won the
first portion of a $2.38 billion
contract with the US Air Force,
covering the delivery of 84
AW139 medium-twin-derived
MH-139As. The type will be em-
ployed during ballistic missile
base security and utility missions,
replacing aged Bell UH-1s. ■
Corps, plus the Italian navy and
the UK, for use aboard their re-
spective amphibious assault
ships and aircraft carriers.
“This proposed sale will aug-
ment Singapore’s operational
aircraft inventory, adding to an ef-
fective deterrence to defend its
borders and contribute to coali-
tion operations with allied and
partner forces,” the DSCA says.
Cirium fleets data shows that
the Republic of Singapore Air
Force's current inventory in-
cludes 40 Boeing F-15SGs and 60
Lockheed F-16C/Ds. ■
flightglobal.com

PROGRAMME GARRETT REIM LOS ANGELES
Multi-year contract lifts C-130J backlog
Up to 50 more Super Hercules will be produced through 2025 under framework DoD agreement valued at $3 billion
ockheed Martin has won a $3
L billion multi-year contract to
deliver up to 50 C-130Js to the US
Air Force (USAF), US Marine
Corps (USMC) and US Coast
Guard (USCG).
The US Department of Defense
in late last month awarded the
company $1.5 billion for a first
tranche of 21 aircraft, the compa-
ny announced on 13 January.
Lockheed will deliver a mix of
24 HC-130Js and MC-130Js to the
USAF, and 20 KC-130J tankers to
the USMC, while the USCG has
an option to buy six HC-130Js for
long-range maritime surveillance.
SURVEILLANCE GREG WALDRON SINGAPORE
France signals Gabriel successor plan
with adapted Falcon 8X procurement
aris has awarded Dassault and
P Thales a contract to prepare
the first two of an eventual three
Falcon 8X long-range business
jets adapted for signals intelli-
gence (SIGINT) duties.
France’s DGA defence procure-
ment agency late last year an-
nounced the selection of the
modified trijets to replace the air
force’s current two Dassault-
Breguet C160G Gabriel platforms.
The new assets should be in op-
erational use from 2025.
Dubbed ARCHANGE, the pro-
gramme will involve installing
Thales’s CUGE “universal elec-
Thales will supply and install
sensors on modified Falcon 8X
flightglobal.com
Carrier debut
advances LCA
Navy trials
Defence P18
Lockheed plans to deliver the
aircraft from its Marietta, Georgia,
facility between 2021 and 2025.
With an extended range of
3,480nm (6,440km), the HC-130J
Combat King II is used for person-
nel recovery tasks, while the
MC-130J Commando II is a spe-
cial forces variant used for clan-
destine infiltration and exfiltra-
tion, plus the low-level in-flight
refuelling of helicopters and the
Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey tiltrotor.
“Our partnership with the US
government provides significant
savings through multi-year pro-
curement,” says Rod McLean,
tronic warfare” suite and onboard
operator stations. An image issued
by Dassault indicates that modifi-
cations to the Falcon 8X airframe
will include incorporating a large
canoe fairing beneath its forward
fuselage, with the company refer-
ring to the wider modification
programme as involving “highly
complex integration work”.
“Thales will produce all the
sensors for the SIGINT payload,
and integrate the system,” the
company says. Drawing on previ-
ous studies, this technology will
enable the aircraft “to detect and
analyse radar and radar signals si-
Extended-range Combat King II is used as personnel recovery asset
Lockheed’s vice-president and
general manager of air mobility
and maritime missions.
Cirium fleets data shows that
the USAF currently operates 246
multaneously for the first time.”
The capability will be under-
pinned by “multi-polarisation”
antennas and automated data pro-
cessing techniques, it adds.
Additional elements of the
ARCHANGE deal signed on 30
December will include a ground-
based training platform, to be in-
stalled at Evreux air base.
Cirium fleets data shows that
the French air force’s two Rolls-
Royce Tyne-engined C160Gs are
aged 33 and 36 years. The na-
tion’s SIGINT deal represents the
first military special mission ap-
plication for the Falcon 8X. ■
Dassault
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 17
DEFENCE
US Air Force
C-130Js in the tactical transport
and special-mission roles. The
USMC has 58 KC-130Js in use,
while the USCG has a 13-strong
fleet of the Lockheed type. ■
MODIFICATION
GARRETT REIM LOS ANGELES
Anti-radiation
missile guided
at Lightning II
he US Air Force (USAF) is
T requesting information on
potential modifications to the
Northrop Grumman Advanced
Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-
Extended Range (AARGM-ER), to
make the weapon suitable for use
by its Lockheed Martin F-35As.
A request for information post-
ed online by the service on 9 Janu-
ary indicates the proposed Stand-
in Attack Weapon (SiAW) would
“heavily leverage” the AARGM-
ER design. The current missile is
to be integrated on the US Navy’s
(USN’s) Boeing F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet and EA-18G Growler
fleets, and also carried internally
by its carrier-variant F-35Cs.
Anti-radiation missiles are
used to target radar-guided sur-
face-to-air missile launchers and
other air-defence system sensors
on the ground – an important
early step in controlling the skies
above a battlefield.
In March 2019, Northrop re-
ceived a $323 million contract for
development work on the USN’s
AARGM-ER programme. ■
DEFENCE
MILESTONE MIKE RAJKUMAR BENGALURU
Carrier debut advances LCA Navy trials
Hindustan Aeronautics-built light combat aircraft makes first arrested landing and take-off from Indian aircraft carrier
Hindustan Aeronautics
A (HAL)-built light combat
aircraft (LCA) technology demon-
strator has performed a first ar-
rested landing on board the Indian
navy aircraft carrier INS Vikrama-
ditya, followed by a maiden take-
off from its ski-jump ramp.
The first such events to involve
an Indian-produced jet, the mile-
stones built on the results of ear-
lier flight trials conducted using a
ski-jump installed at a Shore Base
Test Facility in Goa since Decem-
ber 2014, and an inaugural ar-
rested recovery performed at the
same site in September 2019.
Both of India’s LCA Navy Mk I
prototypes are performing the
role of technology demonstrators,
undertaking tasks such as the
ongoing carrier suitability trials.
This work is also intended to
assist with developmental flight
testing and concept validation,
and to facilitate pilot training
REQUIREMENT GARRETT REIM LOS ANGELES
Boeing, Sikorsky bid in German heavy-lift contest
oeing and Sikorsky submitted
B final bids for Germany’s
heavy-lift helicopter programme
on 13 January, with the compa-
nies expecting a contract award
from the Bundeswehr in 2021 for
between 44 and 60 aircraft.
The competition is to replace
the German air force’s Sikorsky
CH-53G/GA/GS rotorcraft, built
under licence by VFW-Fokker.
Cirium fleets data records the ser-
vice as operating 78 examples,
with an average age of 48 years.
in association with:
18 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020
for carrier operations.
Twin-seat prototype NP1 and
single-seat NP2 are based on the
Indian air force’s Tejas MkI ver-
sion of the LCA, and were respec-
tively first flown in April 2012
and February 2015.
Lengthy delays associated
with the LCA Navy programme –
Indian navy
Historic event (inset) built on earlier ski-jump ramp use at Goa base
Boeing’s CH-47F can carry an
underslung load of up to
11,800kg (26,800lb), while
Sikorsky’s rival CH-53K – cur-
rently in development for the US
Marine Corps – is capable of
transporting a 12,200kg external
load 110nm (204km), according
to its manufacturer.
Both companies have teamed
with multiple German partners in
support of their bids, with the se-
lected supplier also to provide
training and in-service support. ■
Download the 2020
Wo r l d A i r Fo r c e s R e p o r t
w w w. f l i g h t g l o b a l . c o m / w a f
which commenced in 2003 –
have resulted in the Indian navy
opting to proceed with plans to
obtain a new, twin-engined carri-
er-based fighter, rather than ac-
quire a proposed MkII version of
the current indigenous type.
New Delhi has ambitious tar-
gets for the proposed twin-
engined development effort,
including a first flight target
during 2026. However, the com-
plexity of such an activity –
which could potentially be a
Indian navy
CH-53 offering leverages development effort for US Marine Corps
further development of a medi-
um-weight fighter design being
studied for the Indian air force –
and past experience suggest that
this could slip.
In addition, the Indian navy
has a separate requirement for 57
twin-engined naval fighters, with
likely candidates being the Boe-
ing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and
Dassault Rafale. Saab has also
previously proposed a carrier-op-
timised version of its Gripen.
The Russian-built Vikramadi-
tya, and a future second aircraft
carrier, INS Vikrant, which is
under construction in India, are
both configured for short take-off
but assisted recovery operations
using a ski-jump ramp.
As of late December 2019,
HAL’s LCA prototypes and test
aircraft had amassed a combined
4,639 developmental flights. Its
two naval prototypes accounted
for only 120 and 89 flights. ■
Messe Berlin
flightglobal.com
 Take your career
to new levels
Register your CV and start
your job search today

Get premium content every Set up job alerts and receive %TGCVG[QWTRTQƂNGCPF
week, including top tips, relevant jobs in your inbox as get headhunted by recruiters
careers advice and industry soon as they appear and airlines
developments

Start your journey today  "ƃKIJVLQD

 "ƃKIJVINQDCNLQDU
Register at ,QDUƃKIJVINQDCNEQOTGIKUVGT  (NKIJV,QDU
BUSINESS AVIATION
DELIVERIES
KATE SARSFIELD LONDON
China weakness
dents Dassault’s
delivery figures
assault fell short of its 2019
D delivery target by five units
citing a “difficult market”,
handing over 40 aircraft last year
– itself a one-unit fall on the
2018 total.
The drop in output can be at-
tributed largely to falling de-
mand from China – previously
one of the strongest markets for
Falcon jets – driven by a weak
economy and trade tensions
with the USA.
Net Falcon orders for the year
ended 31 December fell by two
units to 40, resulting in a book-to-
bill ratio of one.
The total backlog is unchanged
at a combined 53 aircraft across
the 7X, 8X and 900LX trijets, plus
the twin-engined 2000LXS, and
developmental 6X.
The superwide-cabin aircraft
was launched in February 2018
as a replacement to the 5X
programme, which Dassault
axed two months earlier because
of recurrent technical issues
with the jet’s Safran Silvercrest
engines.
Dassault says final assembly of
the first 6X flight-test article is
scheduled to begin early in the
second quarter. Certification and
service entry of the Pratt & Whit-
ney Canada PW812D-powered
aircraft is expected in 2022. ■
TESTING ALFRED CHUA SINGAPORE
EHang powers on with 216 after debut US sortie
Demonstration flight
follows trials in China
20 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020
OPERATIONS KATE SARSFIELD LONDON
Falcon 2000 completes fleet
upgrade at Dumont Aviation
Last of 17 super-midsize jets ordered in 2018 helps drive charter firm’s expansion plan
S business aircraft services
U provider Dumont Aviation
has taken delivery of its 27th and
final pre-owned Dassault Falcon
2000 business jet from an undis-
closed fractional ownership pro-
vider. The firm is also planning
further expansion with both a
more diverse fleet and a Europe-
an base under evaluation.
Dumont, now the largest Fal-
con operator in the world, com-
mitted to its first batch of 10
2000-model aircraft in 2017 and
purchased the remaining 17
examples in the third quarter of
2018. Company founder and
chief executive Dan Piraino says
the acquisition was driven by
“a need to update our 17-strong
fleet of Falcon 50s and by rising
demand for charter”.
Super-midsize business jets
replace the company’s smaller
Falcon 50s. While a non-disclo-
sure agreement forbids New Cas-
tle, Delaware-headquartered Du-
mont from identifying the
previous owner of the Falcon
2000s, Cirium fleets data reveals
that it was NetJets, which operat-
ed the 10-seat 2000s from new.
“It was a natural transition to a
newer platform, and we wanted a
common super-midsize fleet with
EHang
Former NetJets aircraft
have been fully
refurbished
a flat cabin floor,” says Piraino.
“The Falcon 2000 met all our re-
quirements and the timing was
perfect as the previous operator
was looking to upgrade its fleet
as well.”
In parallel, Dumont has been
“cultivating its relationship”
with Dassault, for which it pro-
vides spare parts for Falcon 10,
20, 50, 2000 and 900-series busi-
ness jets. Dumont also provides
MRO services for the Falcon fam-
ily, and refurbished and repaint-
ed all 27 2000s, which have an
average age of 17 years.
“With their interior, high-
speed wi-fi and excellent in-flight
service, the aircraft have been
well received by the customers,”
the company adds. “We are sign-
ing on new customers to our jet
hina’s EHang has flown its
C 216 electric vertical take-off
and landing (eVTOL) aircraft pro-
totype for the first time in the
USA. Following a demonstration
flight in Raleigh, North Carolina,
on 8 January, it is now working
towards securing Federal Avia-
tion Administration certification
for the two-seat aircraft, and
launching commercial passenger-
carrying services in the country.
Dumont Aviation
card programme nearly every
week.”
Dumont is now seeking to ex-
pand the fleet with a “longer-
range intercontinental aircraft”.
“We are looking at several new
and pre-owned aircraft options
with a focus on cabin size and
range, and obvious operating eco-
nomics,” says Piraino. “We hope
to make a decision at the end of
the first quarter.”
The company is also planning
to establish a base in Europe
within 12 to 18 months, he adds,
offering charter services and
“perhaps MRO services as well”.
“The market seems to be
pointing at expansion into Afri-
ca as well,” says Piraino. “But
only as a destination, not as a
base of operations.” ■
EHang began flight trials of the
216 last November in its home
city of Guangzhou, and has also
demonstrated the aircraft in
Austria, where its manufacturing
partner, FACC, is based.
In December the company,
which also produces small con-
sumer drones, raised about
$46  million through its initial
public offering on the Nasdaq
stock exchange. ■
flightglobal.com

STRATEGY KATE SARSFIELD LONDON
US court approves Tamarack’s reorganisation plan
usiness aircraft winglet man-
B ufacturer Tamarack Aero-
space is hoping to exit Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection early in
the second quarter, after a US
court approved its reorganisation
plan, which will see the compa-
ny repay all its creditors “in full”.
Tamarack voluntarily filed for
Chapter 11 protection on 1 June
Restrictions were lifted on Citation jets with company’s Atlas winglets
DIRIGIBLE MURDO MORRISON LONDON
HAV pumped for production Airlander
Updated design readied for manufacture as Hybrid Air Vehicles explores ‘strong interest’ from the commercial sector
ybrid Air Vehicles (HAV) has
H unveiled a production de-
sign for its Airlander 10 to re-
place a prototype grounded in
November 2017 after a second
incident during flight testing, as it
steps up its certification efforts.
The Bedford, UK-based devel-
oper says it is “in negotiations”
for the first four production
slots, based on letters of intent
for “over 10 aircraft” from organ-
isations in the tourism and
“clean technology” sectors.
Changes to the aircraft include
a 5% longer and slightly wider
gondola at 46 x 6m (151 x 20ft),
with the fuel module moved into
the hull instead of being sus-
pended, although a shorter cabin
is available, says the company.
There is also a lower-drag
shape, and retractable rather than
fixed landing gear. In addition, a
bow thruster has been added,
propulsors have been unducted,
and the nose is more “rounded”.
HAV chief executive Tom
flightglobal.com
BUSINESS AVIATION
Has safety peaked?
Cover story P22
2019, after European and US reg- ation system – malfunctioned on a emerge from bankruptcy in a
ulators grounded all 89 Cessna
Citation light business jets retro-
handful of occasions. This result-
ed in in-flight upsets, “but in each
strong position”.
Klinginsmith says the compa-
fitted with the company’s Atlas incident the pilot was able to re- ny has the “financial health to
active winglet system. cover from the event and land the repay everyone in full, including
The European Union Aviation aircraft safely”, Tamarack says. the people who contributed to
Safety Agency and US Federal The restrictions were lifted in the DIP financing”.
Aviation Administration each is- July, and all Atlas-equipped CJ, Since the grounding, Tamarack
sued emergency airworthiness di- CJ1/1+, CJ2/2+, CJ3/3+ and M2 has installed active winglets on
rectives after Atlas – a load-allevi- twinjets were returned to service. 10 Citation-series jets – a mix of
In August, the Sandpoint, CJ, CJ1, CJ2+, and CJ3+ aircraft –
Idaho-based firm received $1.95 and Klinginsmith says work is
million in committed debtor-in- now underway on its 100th
possession (DIP) funds from what installation. The completed
it describes as “friendly investors, aircraft will be delivered to its
including customers, vendors, owner in February.
and other company stakeholders”. Interest in the product remains
This “line of credit”, says “strong”, Klinginsmith says. “We
Tamarack Aerospace
Tamarack president Jacob are in discussion with a number of
Klinginsmith, has “provided a prospective customers, and spring
financial safety net as we resume has always been a good sales sea-
operations and make plans to son for us,” he adds. ■
Grundy says the new features sponsible travel experiences that home to the UK’s first airship pro-
will “provide the flexibility
needed to deliver the unique
we’ve been seeing in the com-
mercial sector.”
ject over 100 years ago.
Last year, HAV stepped up
experiences the commercial Grundy adds that the company efforts to market the aircraft –
market is keen to offer its cus- is “working to secure” invest- originally conceived for a subse-
tomers” and are “an important ment for a production facility. quently cancelled US Army
milestone on our path to certifi- HAV has a design centre in requirement – to commercial cus-
cation”. He adds: “Our current Bedford and built and flew the tomers, including the high-end
negotiations are the result of the prototype at one of the giant leisure sector. It installed a luxury
strong interest in providing re- hangars in Cardington that were cabin mock-up, built by the De-
sign Q agency, at its Bedford site.
The 15m-long walk-in demon-
strator was intended to show
what an interior might look like
in VIP configuration, with
features such as panoramic,
floor-length windows and eight
double bedrooms.
To tap into the “green tourism”
market, HAV said it was working
with Collins Aerospace on an
electric power system to replace
the four Thielert diesel engines.
The company has said it plans
Hybrid Air Vehicles
to begin flight testing “by the
early 2020s”, with deliveries
from 2024. ■
Company sees prospects in ‘responsible travel’ and luxury markets
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 21
COVER STORY
Has safety
peaked?
The shock of a second 737 Max tragedy in the past year has
prompted an urgent rethink of certification and training
priorities after a long period of improving accident statistics
DAVID LEARMOUNT LONDON
T
he dominant features in world airline
safety performance for 2019 were a
gentle reversal of the long-estab-
lished improving trend – and the
shock to the entire commercial air transport
industry of a second crash involving a nearly-
new Boeing 737 Max 8 within five months of
the first, in October 2018.
A question for the industry to answer is: are
these two factors causally related? The safety
statistics trend reversal in calendar year 2019
was obviously influenced by the 737 Max
crash that happened in March. Less obvious,
however, is whether the design failing by Boe-
ing that contributed to the two accidents is a
symptom of a more general malaise. Might it
be deemed complacency, or does it have an-
other name?
In any case, global airline fatal accident fig-
ures in 2019 do indeed suggest that a long pe-
riod of consistent airline safety improvement
may be coming to an end. Until that point,
modern airline safety performance statistics
had been improving steadily since the Second
World War.
That does not mean that the world’s air-
lines are suddenly unsafe, but it does suggest
that the hope of a zero fatal accident future is
likely to remain just out of reach in today’s air
transport industry.
Last year, the total number of fatal acci-
dents involving airline operations of all kinds
was 22, and the number of resulting crew and
passenger deaths was 297. In 2018 the respec-
tive figures were 14 and 543; in 2017 there
were 12 fatal accidents and only 56 fatalities;
but the best year to date was 2015, which saw
only nine fatal crashes and 176 casualties.
In recent years, there have been some 12-
month periods in which no jet-powered air-
liners crashed at all, but the 2019 fatal crashes
involved three carrying passengers and two
22 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020
big cargo aircraft. The rest of the 2019 fatal ac-
cidents involved propeller-driven aircraft
large and small.
The most serious accident of the year was
the 10 March crash of an Ethiopian Airlines
737-8 near Addis Ababa, in which all eight
crew and 149 passengers died. It was also the
most shocking event of the year by a long
way because, less than five months
previously, a Lion Air 737-8 had crashed
fatally, having suffered an almost identical
technical anomaly.
Within 24h of the Ethiopian crash, Ethio-
pia and several Asia-Pacific nations ground-
ed their 737 Max operations; the following
day, the European Union Aviation Safety
Agency and others did the same, and finally
the US Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) grounded US Maxes on 13 March,
explaining that information emerging from
the Ethiopian investigation had precipitated
its decision. aggregation, and I don’t think that’s a future
any of us wants to see.”
DOUBLE BLOW There is consensus, however, between the
Since the two 737 Max accidents, the completed Indonesian investigation (see
industry has experienced something of an synopsis on P26) and the unfinished
identity crisis, based on the undeniable fact Ethiopian inquiry, that a software-driven
that two aircraft just off the production line system unique to the 737 Max – known as
of the world’s most respected and long-estab- the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmenta-
lished aircraft manufacturer could have suf- tion System (MCAS) – designed to help bal-
fered almost identical technical failures that ance the aircraft in pitch under specific cir-
caused the crews to lose control of them. cumstances, was erroneously triggered, in
Comment at all levels since then has been both cases by a faulty or damaged angle-of-
raucous and relentless. attack (AOA) sensor. The effect of this incor-
The aviation world seems to be using the rect AOA input was to pitch the aircraft’s
737 Max grounding as a period of reflection, nose down repeatedly by motoring the
which is no bad thing. Boeing and the FAA horizontal stabiliser, confusing the crews
have accepted that the eventual clearance of about the cause of this pitch change, so their
the modified aircraft to fly again must be an efforts at correcting it were ineffective. Both
international decision, not a US one. In De- aircraft crashed at high speed with high rates
cember, before his departure from the compa- of descent.
ny, Boeing’s then-chief executive Dennis Public comment on the two Max accidents
Muilenberg said: “If we do not co-ordinate has included a great deal of unhelpful contri-
this [return to service] we may see some dis- butions on pilot web forums. This has mostly
flightglobal.com

been on US – or more generally, Western –
sites and demonstrates a mindset that con-
cludes: “These crashes both happened to a
non-Western carrier,” as if that were an expla-
nation. The clear implication is: “It would not
have happened to a US airline.”
“We are concerned that
the process used to evaluate
the original design needs
improvement”
National Transportation Safety Board
Both Max accidents, however, involved an
aggravated version of loss of control in flight,
precipitated by a confusing technical distrac-
tion. To attribute the crashes mainly to pilot
incompetence is a dangerous departure from
the fact that something technical went very
wrong, and that pilot training everywhere –
flightglobal.com
including in the USA – for an MCAS mal-
function has since been found in the investi-
gations to have been inadequate. The ongoing
review of Boeing’s “fix” for the MCAS is not
merely a matter of hardware and software re-
design, it entails a review of how Max pilots
must be trained for the redesigned system be-
fore the aircraft can be cleared once again for
commercial operation.
The US National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) is urging the FAA to review
pilot-related assumptions that Boeing and
other manufacturers use when designing air-
craft. In September, the NTSB issued a report
recommending a review not only of aspects
of the 737 Max’s certification, but also those
of all commercial transport aircraft, urging
the FAA to develop broad standards to make
cockpit alerts clearer and to help pilots pri-
oritise cockpit warnings. The report says:
“We are concerned that the process used to
evaluate the original design needs improve-
ment because that [old] process is still in use
AIRLINE SAFETY
10 March Ethiopian Airlines crash,
in which 157 people died, was the
biggest loss of 2019
Mulugeta Ayene/AP/Shutterstock
to certify current and future aircraft and
system designs.”
There is an implication throughout the
reports that reviews of assumed pilot reaction
to failures must be conducted from time to
time because, in a digital age, new young pi-
lots will have been educated differently, so
their knowledge, understanding and reac-
tions may be different from that of their fore-
bears. Even the aircraft they first learn to fly
on will have digital instrumentation and air-
craft management tools, so they are less likely
to have had the same exposure to “raw” flying
– and the practical human-factor consequenc-
es of this inevitable change must be studied
by the manufacturers and regulators.
EXTERNAL INPUT
Apart from internal reviews of their respec-
tive organisations and corporate culture con-
ducted by the FAA and Boeing in the light of
the Max accidents, the FAA also
commissioned an independent inquiry by a ❯❯
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 23
COVER STORY

❯❯ group of regulators from 10 countries.

Initial findings from Amazon
This group, the Joint Authorities Technical
Prime Air 767 loss point to pilot
Review (JATR), was tasked with reviewing
disorientation
the process of certification, design and
development in this age of integrated
systems and the effect of design changes on
human factors.

“Aircraft functions should

be assessed, not in an
incremental and fragmented
manner, but holistically at the
aircraft level”
Joint Authorities Technical Review

Specifically relating to the design of the

MCAS, the JATR had this to say: “The design
process was not sufficient to identify all the
potential MCAS hazards. As part of the sin-
gle-channel speed trim system, the MCAS
function did not include fault tolerant fea-
tures, such as sensors voting or limits of au-
thority, to limit failure effects consistent
with the hazard classification.” It added:
“The use of pilot action as a primary mitiga-
tion means for MCAS hazards, before con-
sidering eliminating such hazards or provid-
ing design features or warnings to mitigate
them, is not in accordance with Boeing’s pro-
cess instructions for safe design in the con-
ception of MCAS for the 737 Max.”
On flight-control system design process,
the JATR provided the FAA and Boeing with
this general advice, tailored for the arrival of
the age of integrated systems: “Aircraft
functions should be assessed, not in an
incremental and fragmented manner, but lenged to ensure robust designs are realised. are correct, complete, and verified.”
holistically at the aircraft level. System The safety analysis process should be The implication is that present systems,
function and performance, including the ef- integrated with the aircraft development inherited from a compliance culture where
fects of failures, should be demonstrated and assurance process to ensure all safety components were tested individually to pre-
associated assumptions should be chal- requirements and associated assumptions scribed standards, is no longer suitable for
today’s certification challenges.
Finally, the Indonesian report on the Lion
World airline fatal accidents and fatalities, 2010-2019* Air crash argues exhaustively that aircraft
Fatal accidents Fatalities must be designed for ordinary crews, not for
50 900 Boeing or Airbus test pilots. This is not a new
45 810
argument, but a re-statement of it appears to
40 720
be needed. Hopefully better type rating and
35 630
recurrent training would also be an outcome
30 540
of this soul searching.
25 450
20 360
NOTABLE EVENTS
15 270
Meanwhile, in the USA, an Amazon Prime
10 180
Air 767 freighter crashed out of control during
5 90
what began as a normal descent to its destina-
0 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 tion at Houston. Initial investigations by the
Source: FlightGlobal *Not including fatal events known to be caused by deliberate action
NTSB suggest that a possible contributory
factor may be pilot disorientation caused by a
Fatal accidents Fatalities sudden linear acceleration in flight (see
accident listing, P32). Like the two Max

24 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com

 AIRLINE SAFETY

Before leaving Boeing, Dennis Muilenburg

urged international co-ordination of the
737 Max return to service, to prevent
regulatory ‘disaggregation’

Shutterstock
NTSB

crashes, in this case the aircraft also ended up

in a high-speed dive, but the reasons for that
terminal flight profile look as if they will be
found to be very different when the inquiry is
complete.
Another notable, but completely different
accident, was the Aeroflot Sukhoi Superjet
that was hit powerfully by lightning, causing
multiple systems to fail. Detail on the
failures is still incomplete. The aircraft re-
turned to land at Moscow Sheremetyevo air-
port, but the crew’s already high workload
was compounded by a strong and gusting
crosswind, and a very heavy landing and
high bounce caused structural failure lead-
ing to a fire (see P30).
Maxim Shipenkov/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

In 2019, however, dominating every other

consideration were the 737 Max accidents
and the lessons they confer. As a result, over
the next few years, aircraft certification pro-
cesses will almost certainly be overhauled to
make them suitable for monitoring the use of
2020s technology, and delivering to the flight-
crew equipment that they can work with. ■ Aeroflot is studying a Superjet’s forced landing in Moscow after it was struck by lightning

flightglobal.com 21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 25

COVER STORY
INVESTIGATIONS
Accident reports issued during the second half of 2019
■ Lion Air Boeing
737 Max 8, Jakarta, 29
October 2018
The Indonesian National Transport
Safety Committee (KNKT) found
that the aircraft (PK-LQP), during the
climb-out from Jakarta international
airport on a short domestic flight,
crashed when the crew lost control
following a technical malfunction. It
dived into the sea northeast of
Jakarta at a 10,000ft/min (51m/s)
rate of descent some 11min after
take-off. All eight crew and 181
passengers on board were killed in
the impact, the KNKT reports. The
Indonesian report is unusual in how
deeply it examines Boeing’s aircraft
and systems design parameters,
design assumptions, and design
oversight relating to the component
and systems failures that triggered
the accident sequence. In the
“conclusions” section of the report,
the investigators do not present
causal factors or probable causes as
such, but a series of 89 “findings”. It
defines these as “statements of all
significant conditions, events or
circumstances in the accident
sequence”. These are mostly
chronological events, but also
examine Boeing’s design
assumptions and system testing
parameters, particularly with
reference to system components
that, in the accident aircraft, did not
work as intended or predicted.
Statements are also made
contrasting Boeing’s assumptions
about pilot reactions to
malfunctions with what the crew
actually faced, and how they
actually reacted. The conclusions lay
out the story of how the pilots lost
control, and what was happening to
cause them to do so. For a full
understanding of everything that
contributed to the accident, the
report needs to be read in its
entirety. Paragraph one in the
conclusions section immediately
mentions the Maneuvering
Characteristics Augmentation
System (MCAS). It describes the
circumstances under which MCAS is
supposed to operate and why
Boeing was not required by
regulations to carry out an
26 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020
Indonesian regulator found crew of a 737 Max 8 lost in 2018 had not been trained in MCAS operation
exhaustive examination of
“unintended MCAS-commanded
stabiliser movement”. The report
says: “Boeing conducted the FHA
[functional hazard analysis]
assessment based on FAA [Federal
Aviation Administration] guidance
and also based on an assumption
that the flightcrew was highly likely
to respond correctly within three
seconds.” The final paragraph in the
conclusions section – paragraph 89
– refers not to the Lion Air crash but
to the Ethiopian Airlines disaster
that occurred five months later. It
highlights a causal factor that was
common to both cases, but does
not mention that this detail was
taken from the preliminary report of
the Ethiopian investigation, because
the final report was not (and still is
not) yet completed. The following is
the KNKT’s last statement in the
conclusions section: “On 10 March
2019, an accident related to failure
of an AOA (angle of attack) sensor
occurred involving a Boeing 737-8
(Max) registered ET-AVJ operated
by Ethiopian Airlines for scheduled
passenger flight from Addis Ababa
Bole International Airport (HAAB),
Ethiopia to Jomo Kenyatta
International Airport (HKJK), Kenya
with flight number ET-302.” Critical
factors in the accident sequence are
made clear in the report. It
describes the triggering fault:
before the Lion Air accident flight,
the AOA sensor in the aircraft that
connects with the MCAS had been
replaced with one that had been
repaired by an American
maintenance company, Xtra
Aerospace of Miramar, Florida, but
it had been miscalibrated in
reassembly and this major fault went
unnoticed. As a result, the AOA
sensor was reading higher than the
stalling AOA, and from take-off
through almost all of the rest of the
flight the stick-shaker stall warning
was operating. There were also
related warnings of “airspeed
disagee”, “altitude disagree”, and
“feel differential pressure”,
triggered by the same AOA sensor
fault. The report argues that, under
the circumstances of this flight, it is
not surprising that the crew lost
control. “During the accident flight,
multiple alerts and indications
occurred which increased the
flightcrew’s workload. This obscured
the problem and the flightcrew
could not arrive at a solution during
the initial or subsequent aircraft
nose-down (AND) stabiliser trim
inputs.” When the aircraft reached
the phase of flight where MCAS
operation was enabled (manual
flight, flaps up) triggered by the
false AOA input, the MCAS-
controlled stabiliser reaction kicked
in, but its operation was not the
Shutterstock
same as the pilots would normally
expect. The report says: “Pulling
back on the control column
normally interrupts any electric
stabiliser AND command, but for
the 737-8 with MCAS operating,
that control column cutout function
is disabled.” Crews had not been
instructed or trained in MCAS
operation, the report says. The
report continues: “The stick-shaker
activated continuously after lift-off
and the noise could have interfered
with the flightcrew hearing the
sound of the stabiliser wheel
spinning during MCAS operation.”
Finally, the investigators observe:
“The digital flight-data recorder
[FDR] indicated that, during the last
phase of the flight, the aircraft
descended and could not be
controlled. Column forces
exceeded 100lb, which is more than
the 75lb limit set by the regulation.”
The report provides considerable
detail about failings in Lion Air’s
aircraft maintenance management
and in its record-keeping discipline.
Similarly, there are criticisms of crew
disrespect for standard operating
procedures, particularly in the case
of the crew that flew the same
aircraft the previous day. It also
details remedial measures Lion Air
has already set in train. But none of
these deficiencies were causal in the
accident on 29 October 2018.
flightglobal.com

■ Air France Airbus A380,
Greenland, 30 September
2017
Operators of Airbus A380s with
Engine Alliance power units have
been told to conduct inspections
of their fan hub blade locks to
check for damage caused during
disassembly or reassembly. In the
event that prompted the
airworthiness directive, the entire
fan and inlet cowling separated
from the No 4 engine of an Air
France A380 (F-HPJE) over
Greenland, and the aircraft
diverted safely to Goose Bay,
Canada, with no injury to any of its
24 crew and 497 passengers.
Because of snow covering, it took
months to find the detached
component parts to investigate
what had happened to the GP7200
fan, but investigators eventually
recovered the material for
examination. The Federal Aviation
Administration says the
manufacturer has developed a new
design for the fan hub blade lock.
■ Khabarovsk Airlines
Aircraft Industries
Let L-410, Nelkan, Russia,
15 November 2017
The European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) has drawn up
an order requiring operators of the
Let L-410 twin-turboprop commuter
aircraft to fit a new control
mechanism. It is also setting out an
inspection regime for the control at
intervals of 100h. The measures
follow the fatal accident involving a
Khabarovsk Airlines L-410, which
suffered a propeller reversal – a shift
in pitch to the beta range – at low
height on approach to Nelkan,
Russia. GE Aviation Czech
manufactures the H80-200 engines
for the L-410 variant involved, a
UVP-E20. EASA has previously
issued directives requiring
inspection and adjustment of the
engine push-pull control, as well as
replacement of the beta switch, but
the engine manufacturer has since
developed an “improved” push-
pull control, says EASA, which
“reduces further” the risk of
uncommanded in-flight propeller
flightglobal.com
reversal. It is this modification that
the EASA directive now requires.
■ Saratov Airlines
Antonov An-148, Moscow,
11 February 2018
Analysis of a Saratov Airlines
Antonov An-148 (RA-61704) crew’s
actions soon after take-off from
Moscow Domodedovo shows the
two pilots applied opposite inputs
to the control columns. The
twinjet’s captain pushed the aircraft
into a dive in response to an
apparent loss of airspeed – a false
indication caused by icing of the
aircraft’s pitot-static sensors, the
heaters for which had not been
switched on. When the ground-
proximity warning system issued a
“pull up” alert at about 5,000ft
altitude as the aircraft descended
at more than 9,800ft/min, the co-
pilot pulled on the control column
in a bid to bring the nose up. The
Russian Interstate Aviation
Committee (MAK) says the captain
was pushing nose-down with a
force of 412N while the first officer
countered with a 382N nose-up
command. The opposite inputs
effectively cancelled one another
out, and the elevators “practically
did not deviate” from their nose-
down position, so initially the An-
148 continued its dive. Finally, at a
height of 1,000-1,300ft, the flight-
data recorder (FDR) shows the two
pilots both suddenly started pulling
together on the control columns.
The MAK report says: “Most
probably, the aircraft emerged
from the clouds at this time and the
pilots realised the ground was
rapidly approaching.” The sudden
nose-up inputs generated a 4.2g
load on the An-148, but were
insufficient to arrest the descent,
and the aircraft – still in a 30° dive
and with 25° right bank – struck the
ground at around 430kt (796km/h),
completely disintegrating with the
loss of all 71 occupants. Analysis of
the whole sequence, from the
moment of take-off for Orsk, just
after 14:21 local time, states that a
“no heating” warning for the pitot-
static sensors was displayed on the
instrument panel, and it remained
on for the entire flight. On
departure, gear and flaps were
retracted by the time the jet had
climbed to 2,100ft, triggering an
attitude alert. FDR information
shows that, at about 3,600ft and
250kt, a discrepancy between the
aircraft’s actual and recorded
airspeed began to emerge. As the
pilots were working through the
checklist for passing the transition
altitude, 3min 40s into the flight,
they received a speed-comparison
alert. This showed that one of the
three speed sensor channels had
already been rejected, and that the
readings of the other two were
starting to differ by more than
5.4kt. The pilots’ airspeed
indications were showing around
245kt, and the rejected channel
was significantly lower, at 230kt,
while the actual estimated figure
was about 265kt, says the inquiry.
The crew disengaged the
autopilot, and investigators believe
that is when the captain pushed his
control column forward, taking the
aircraft from 5° nose-up to 5° nose-
down, putting the jet into a
descent at up to 3,900ft/min.
When the action was queried by
the first officer, the captain's “hold”
reply suggested that he was
attempting to prevent the aircraft’s
speed from falling below 215kt.
But then as the speed sensor
readings varied, the captain’s
speed channel was suddenly
rejected in favour of the third
Khabarovsk L-410 crash prompted EASA to issue new control order
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 27
AIRLINE SAFETY
channel, which was registering
259kt – meaning that his displayed
airspeed abruptly leapt by more
than 50kt. At the suggestion of the
first officer, who had noticed rising
airspeed indications on his side,
the crew disengaged the
autothrottle and retarded the thrust
levers to idle before advancing
them, and then retarding them
again. The aircraft continued to
descend, from 6,720ft to 5,770ft,
and its indicated airspeed
increased; that on the captain’s
side showed more than 300kt, and
an overspeed warning sounded.
Investigators estimate the actual
speed was around 313kt.
Subsequently, the aircraft began a
climb, at a rate of up to 2,100ft/
min, reaching a maximum altitude
of 6,230ft. The captain’s airspeed
reading began to fall rapidly – the
result of further deterioration from
sensor icing – and the aircraft was
put into another dive, with a 16°
nose-down attitude, while the
engine thrust levers were advanced
initially before being retarded
again. The crew did not discuss any
of the notifications being displayed
on the central information system,
says the inquiry. Just before 14:27
the captain, in response to a further
drop in his speed indication,
pushed the aircraft into its final
dive, 30° nose down, and
advanced the thrust levers to the
“maximum continuous” position
before once again retarding them.
Shutterstock
❯❯
COVER STORY
INVESTIGATIONS
Accident reports issued during the second half of 2019
Korean Air 737-900 tailstrike
followed bounce on landing
at Osaka
❯❯ The enhanced ground-
proximity warning system called
“Terrain ahead, pull up.” After 2s,
in response to the warning, the first
officer tried to pull the aircraft out
of the dive but – with the captain
still pushing the jet nose down –
the attempt was unsuccessful.
■ Korean Air Boeing
737-900, Osaka, 9 April
2018
Japanese investigators believe a
Korean Air Boeing 737-900 suffered
a tailstrike at Osaka’s Kansai airport
as it pitched up during a go-around,
after the aircraft bounced on
landing. The aircraft (HL7725) had
conducted its approach to runway
06L in a tailwind and the captain,
who was the pilot flying, opted to
reduce thrust to idle earlier than
usual in order to avoid a long
touchdown. But as the aircraft
entered the flare at 30ft, with a 2°
nose-up attitude, the first officer felt
the rate of descent was excessive.
He intervened – without making any
callout – by pulling the control
column aft. This increased the pitch
to 3.5° as it touched down with an
impact of 1.87g. Its main landing-
gear weight-on-wheels switches
activated and the spoilers began to
deploy. The captain expected the
aircraft to bounce, and began to
28 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020
execute a go-around. The aircraft
made runway contact a second
time, with a 1.66g impact, and
flight-data recorder information
shows its pitch then increased from
about 7° to some 10° – above the
8.2° threshold for a tailstrike. “It is
highly probable that the lower aft
fuselage of the aircraft was
damaged [by] contacting the
runway because its pitch angle
became too high,” says the Japan
Transport Safety Board. It states that
the excessive pitch was probably
the result of the captain’s attempt to
avoid the second runway contact by
pulling the nose up. None of the
eight crew or 99 passengers were
injured, but the aircraft sustained
cracks and scratch marks to its aft
fuselage underside over a length of
2m (6ft), and its tail-skid was broken.
■ Norwegian Boeing
737-800, Alicante, June
2018
A failure in air traffic control
oversight at Alicante, Spain, allowed
a Norwegian Boeing 737-800 to be
cleared for departure from an
occupied runway, resulting in it
having to abort its take-off roll. The
aircraft, bound for Oslo, had been
cleared for take-off from runway 10.
Two vehicles, however, had been
granted approval to enter the
runway for a routine surface check
some 4min earlier. The vehicle
clearance had been passed in
Spanish, and investigation authority
CIAIAC says the 737 crew had not
understood the transmission. The
vehicle crews, however, understood
the take-off clearance to the aircraft
– spoken in English – and took
immediate action to vacate the
runway. The Norwegian crew was
ordered to abort the take-off roll
after it had travelled about 160m
(525ft) from the threshold. CIAIAC
says the distance and gradient of
the runway “impeded” visual
contact between the aircraft and the
vehicles. The separation between
them did not fall below 1,000m at
any point. The inquiry primarily
attributes the incursion to the
situation in the control tower, which
was running a single-position
operation, and the controller on the
frequency was a student under
instruction by an instructor who had
“little training experience”. There
was also an assistant on his first day
on the job. At the time of the event,
the instructor had been speaking
with the assistant over an error
involving the flight strip board.
Visibility at the time was good, with
a full view from the tower of the
runway and vehicles on it, but the
take-off clearance was issued
Shutterstock
“without doing a full visual scan”,
says the inquiry. CIAIAC has
recommended that air navigation
service provider FerroNATS
reinforces its training modules for
controllers to take into account the
circumstances of the incursion. After
aborting the take-off roll, the
Norwegian aircraft vacated the
runway via the C2 taxiway and lined
up again for departure 7min later.
■ Swift Air Boeing
737-800, Pardubice, Czech
Republic, 1 August 2018
Czech investigators have
determined that a Boeing 737-800
crew’s failure to comply with sterile
cockpit procedures during an
approach to a wet runway at
Pardubice contributed to its landing
long and overrunning onto rough
ground. The US-registered Swift Air
aircraft (N624XA) was arriving from
Heraklion, Crete. Cockpit-voice
recordings captured a “lively
discussion” between the pilots on
topics “not directly related to the
flight performance” for the “whole
approach and landing”, says Czech
investigation authority UZPLN. The
aircraft overflew the threshold of
runway 27 at a height of 64ft and
touched down at 965m – almost
40% along the 2,500m runway –
after a prolonged flare. UZPLN says
flightglobal.com

the crew “did not perform” a
landing calculation in spite of
acknowledging the wet runway
status. The selection of 30° flap and
the “autobrake 2” setting was
“most likely only by guess and prior
experience” of landing at
Pardubice, it adds. While the first
officer, who was flying, queried
whether to use a higher autobrake
setting, the captain responded that
this would not matter because
reverse-thrust would be available.
The crew did not take into
consideration tailwind information
reported by air traffic control, says
the inquiry, and a factored
calculation should have warned the
pilots that the true stopping
distance could be greater than the
landing distance available. The jet
touched down with a groundspeed
of 152kt (281km/h) and the pilots
immediately applied reverse thrust.
As the aircraft decelerated through
80kt the captain took control of the
aircraft – the investigators say that
this was done “indifferently” – and
commenced manual braking. Only
after the aircraft had reached this
80kt threshold did the crew observe
visual markings indicating it was
approaching the runway end. The
report criticises the captain’s slow
rate of decision making. The aircraft
overran onto grass and stopped
with its main landing-gear about
12m beyond the end of the runway.
UZPLN says the distraction resulting
from non-compliance with sterile
cockpit procedures meant the crew
Canadian Dash 8 inquiry found evidence of an aft cargo door fault
flightglobal.com
lost situational awareness. In
testimony to the inquiry the captain
and the first officer each
underestimated the touchdown
point. The captain had also believed
the runway was wet, owing to
reflective glare, and that the aircraft
aquaplaned. But investigation says
the runway was not very wet, and “it
is possible that, in fact, no
aquaplaning was experienced”.
None of the 159 passengers and six
crew members were injured, and
the aircraft – operating on behalf of
Smartwings – was undamaged.
■ Air Niugini Boeing 737-
800, Chuuk, Micronesia,
28 September 2018
According to investigators, the
captain of an Air Niugini Boeing
737-800 that crashed on final
approach to Chuuk became fixated
with landing the aircraft to the
extent of ignoring several warnings
that it had an excessive sink rate,
and eventually dipped below the
glideslope. The final report into the
fatal accident of the aircraft (P2-PXE)
by Papua New Guinea’s Accident
Investigation Commission (AIC)
concluded that the aircraft was
unstable on its approach, and the
co-pilot “should have taken control
of the aircraft and initiated a missed
approach”, in accordance with the
operator’s standard operating
procedure manual. “The pilots’
actions and statements indicated
that they had lost situational
awareness from 625ft on the
Shutterstock
approach and their attention had
become channelised and fixated on
completing the approach and
landing the aircraft,” the report
states. It notes that the pilots failed
to respond to 16 aural alerts from
the enhanced ground-proximity
warning system (EGPWS), “pull up”
visual warnings at the bottom of the
primary flight display and
indications from the precision
approach path indicator that the
aircraft’s approach angle was too
high, choosing instead to continue.
The pilot in command (PIC) also
reported that there was no visibility
for the last 30s of the flight as a
result of encountering a small storm
cell. The report says: “The co-pilot
was completely unaware of the
hazardous situation unfolding and
did not challenge the PIC and
attempt to take control of the
aircraft and execute a go-around, in
accordance with company
instructions.” As a result, the aircraft
impacted the water of Chuuk
Lagoon around 460m short of the
runway threshold, glancing across
the water several times and turning
clockwise before coming to rest
partially submerged. Of the 12 crew
and 36 passengers on board, 46
occupants were evacuated from the
aircraft. Six passengers sustained
serious injuries. The report observes
that the evacuation was slowed by
passengers’ attempts to recover
baggage. Most passengers were
rescued by local boats, and some
were assisted by US Navy divers
that were in the area. There was one
fatality, which a post mortem
concluded was due to injuries from
the force of the impact with the
water and the fact that the
passenger was not wearing a seat
belt. The body was retrieved three
days later by local divers. The AIC
made 12 recommendations to Air
Niugini, mostly relating to training
on evacuations, safety placards and
other safety deficiencies, which
were addressed and subsequently
closed off by the AIC. However, a
recommendation to Honeywell that
the EGPWS be upgraded to include
a continuous “pull up” aural and
primary flight display warning
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 29
AIRLINE SAFETY
replacing the “sink rate” warning
below 500ft radio altitude remains
open. A comment added by the US
National Transportation Safety
Board disagrees that a change to
the aural warning would have
succeeded in alerting the crew.
Discussions are continuing.
■ Porter Airlines
De Havilland Canada Dash
8-400, 17 July 2019
A preliminary report by the
Transportation Safety Board of
Canada (TSB) on a rapid cabin
depressurisation event involving a
Porter Airlines De Havilland Canada
Dash 8-400 (C-GLQO) suggests
there were problems with the aft
cargo door, and a similar fault has
affected two other Porter Dash
8-400s and a WestJet example. All
the aircraft landed safely with no
injuries. On the Porter flight from
Toronto City to Boston, near
Albany, New York, the “crew
experienced a pressurisation issue”
that caused the cabin altitude to
climb “at a very high rate”, says the
TSB report. The pilots initiated an
emergency descent and declared
mayday. When the aircraft
descended to 10,000ft, “it was
determined there was no structural
damage” and the aircraft continued
safely to Boston. A post-flight
inspection revealed the aft
baggage blowout panel was loose.
TSB reports on the earlier incidents
said pilots of those aircraft received
fuselage door warnings prior to
depressurisations. These were later
traced to cargo door handles being
either improperly secured or
“moving out of the flushed, latched
position”. As a result, the cargo
compartments depressurised,
which, in one instance, dislodged
the aft cabin bulkhead blowout
panel. This was later determined to
be affected by an imperfection in
the door seal. In January 2019,
Porter and WestJet said they were
making modifications to address
the issue. They said manufacturer
Bombardier had issued guidance
for a fix involving modifying the
door latches. TSB says there is no
risk to the aircraft’s safety. ■
AIRLINE SAFETY

Accidents and incidents 2019

Notes on tables
Data comes from Flight International’s research in association with Ascend by Cirium, which compiles the World Aircraft Accident Summary,
among other safety analysis products. In many countries, details of non-fatal incidents are not made available officially, but Flight International
continues to list known significant incidents to maximise the availability of relevant information. We accept that the non-fatal listing may be
weighted against the airlines of those countries that make safety information more readily available.

Glossary of terms and abbreviations

AA airfield approach/early descent system IFR instrument flight rules SID standard instrument
AAL above airfield level EGPWS enhanced ground ILS instrument landing system departure
ACARS automatic communication proximity warning system IMC instrument meteorological TAWS terrain awareness and
addressing and reporting system EGT exhaust gas temperature conditions warning system
ADC air-data computer EICAS engine indicating and ISA international standard TO take-off
ADF automatic direction finder crew alerting system atmosphere: sea level pressure of TOGA press-button selected
AF air force ER en route 1,013.2hPa and standard take-off/go-around thrust
AGL above ground level ETOPS extended twin-engine temperature/pressure lapse rate TSB Transportation Safety Board
AMSL above mean sea level operations with altitude of Canada
AOA angle of attack FDR flight data recorder L landing VASI visual approach slope
ASI airspeed indicator FIR flight information region LP low pressure indicator
ATC air traffic control FL flight level = altitude, in MEL minimum equipment list VFR visual flight rules
C climb hundreds of feet, with international MTOW maximum take-off VHF very high frequency
C-B circuit breaker standard pressure setting (ISA) of weight VMC visual meteorological
CFIT controlled flight into 1013.2hPa set on altimeter (eg NDB non-directional beacon conditions
terrain FL100 – altimeter reading of 10,000ft NTSB US National Transportation VOR VHF omni-range navigation
CNK cause not known with ISA set) Safety Board beacon
CVR cockpit voice recorder FMS flight management system PAPI precision approach path V1 take-off decision speed
DME distance measuring G on ground indicator
equipment GPU ground power unit PAX passengers Conversion factors
ECAM electronic centralised GPWS ground proximity warning PF pilot flying 1nm = 1.85km
aircraft monitor system PNF pilot not flying 1ft = 0.3m
EFIS electronic flight-instrument HP high pressure RA runway/final approach 1kt = 1.85km/h

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
Fatal accidents: scheduled passenger flights
10 Mar Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 Max 8 (ET-AVJ) Near Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 8/149 8/149 C
The aircraft took off from Addis Ababa airport bound for Nairobi, Kenya. Less than 1min after take-off the two AOA sensors on the nose began to differ, then the left one indicated a dramatic increase in AOA. It is believed
that this might have resulted from bird strike damage to the AOA vanes. According to the Ethiopian accident investigators’ initial factual report, as the AOA readings shifted to high values, the stick-shaker began operating
and remained active until impact with the ground some 6min from the beginning of the take-off roll. A little more than 1min after take-off, passing 1,000ft AGL, the captain succeeded in engaging the autopilot and ATC
cleared the aircraft to climb to FL340. The captain asked the co-pilot to retract the flaps. About 35s after it had been engaged, the autopilot disengaged and the aircraft began slight rolling oscillations and rudder-
generated yawing motions, and following flap retraction the horizontal stabiliser rotated automatically in the aircraft-nose-down (AND) sense from 5.9 units to 4.6, and a few seconds later to 2.1 units, whereupon the aircraft
descended a little and the captain countered with elevator, re-establishing climb. The captain asked the co-pilot to advise ATC they had control problems and wanted to maintain runway heading, which was approved. A
manual electric trim nose-up input moved the stabiliser in the aircraft-nose-up (ANU) direction slightly, then a few seconds later there was another 9s burst of automatic AND stabiliser trim movement, which took the
stabiliser to 0.4 units, and the captain called for the co-pilot to add his manual nose-up trim to his own, and the stabiliser moved ANU to 2.3 units. The co-pilot then called “stab trim cut-out” twice, suggesting he realised the
runaway stabiliser drill was required. The captain told him to go ahead. There was another automatic AND demand, but the stabiliser did not respond since the stab trim switches had been selected to cut-out. During all of
this time the power remained at the 94% N1 setting that the crew had selected for take-off. The captain asked for clearance to level off at 14,000ft AMSL (airfield elevation is some 7,500ft) and repeated that the crew had
control problems. Meanwhile airspeed was increasing through the VMO of 340kt (630km/h), the overspeed clacker began operating, and stayed operating until impact. Both pilots were pulling back on the control columns,
and the captain asked the co-pilot if he could get a response from the manual trim wheel. The co-pilot said he could not. At this point it is believed the crew selected the stab-trim cut-out switches back on, hoping to restore
their ability to trim ANU with their control column trim switches, but the automatic AND input resumed. The crew asked ATC for clearance to return, and were given it. The aircraft began to descend, the stabiliser setting
reduced to 0.8, and the aircraft attitude reached 40° nose down. The throttles were still at their take-off setting, and by impact with the ground the airspeed had reached 500kt, according to one of the ASIs. The events
were remarkably similar to those experienced by the crew of a Lion Air Boeing 737 Max 8, which crashed soon after take-off from Jakarta, Indonesia on 29 October 2018, as recorded in the Indonesian investigators’ final
report. That accident also killed everyone on board.
Aeroflot Russian Moscow Sheremetyevo airport,
5 May Sukhoi Superjet 100 (RA-89098) 1/40 5/73 L
International Airlines Russia
The aircraft took off from Sheremetyevo at about 18:00 local time in good visibility, but with thunderstorms in the vicinity, heading for Murmansk. Approaching 9,000ft in the climb, the aircraft suffered a lighting strike, at
which the crew expressed surprise but not alarm. The autopilot disconnected, the flight control computers reverted to direct law, and there was an electrical failure. The captain advised the cabin crew they would return to
Sheremetyevo, but that the situation was not an emergency. Shortly after that they selected the communications-failure squawk 7600 on the transponder. The captain had taken manual control of the aircraft and carried out
a full circle on approach to intercept the ILS for runway 24L at an airspeed of about 170kt, which is faster than normal for final approach. By now the transponder had been set to the emergency squawk of 7700. The crew
had set the flap correctly to 25° for an overweight landing (1.6t over maximum landing weight) and most of the approach was stable if fast, but there was a 20-30kt crosswind from the left. FDR information indicates a
windshear warning on final approach (which may have been spurious) and the aircraft’s pitch fluctuated just before touchdown. It crossed the threshold at 164kt, finally touched down hard on all three wheels 900m
(2,950ft) past the threshold at 158kt and bounced, coming down again on its nose wheel with a 5.85g vertical deceleration. It bounced high again, and FDR data indicates the crew advanced the power levers to maximum
thrust and selected the sidestick to fully nose-up as if for a go-around. There was no power response, but the reverse thrust doors were in transition. The aircraft finally impacted the runway at 140kt with a vertical
deceleration of 5g. The latter impact caused a break in the wing, releasing fuel, and a fire erupted as the aircraft slid to a halt. The fire engulfed the aft end of the fuselage, but some of the passengers and crew managed
to escape from the forward end.
27 Dec Bek Air Fokker 100 (UP-F1007) Almaty airport, Kazakhstan 14 5/96 TO
The aircraft crashed almost immediately after getting airborne at 07:22 local time from runway 05R for a domestic flight to Nur-Sultan. The temperature was -12°C (10°F), dew point 13°C, there was a light wind and mist.
The aircraft appears to have used more of the runway than expected to take off, and when it failed to stay airborne it crashed through an airport boundary wall and came to rest having collided with a house. There was no
fire. An estimated 22 people were badly injured, but some 35 were able to walk away from the aircraft, the fuselage of which was broken in more than one place.

30 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com

 ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS 2019

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
Fatal accidents: non-scheduled operations
9 Mar Laser Aereo Colombia Douglas DC-3 (HK-2494) Near San Martin, Colombia 3/11 3/11 AA
The flight took off from Taraira airport bound for Villavicencio, but diverted to Miraflores because of bad weather. The crew then changed the destination to the airport of San Jose Del Guaviare, landed there and refuelled.
Finally the crew took off again for Villavicencio, but about 54nm (100km) from their destination reported failure of one of the engines worsened by failure to feather its propeller. The crew told ATC at Villavicencio that they would
land at the La Rinconada airstrip. The last call received by Villavicencio was from the crew advising they had the runway in sight, but the aircraft crashed into a plantation, impacting the ground hard with gear and flaps up at a
low forward speed and caught fire.
13 May Taquan Air DHC-3 Turbine Otter (N959PA) George Inlet, Alaska, USA 0/1 1/10 ER
The floatplane took off from Rudyard Bay, Alaska, and was operating a charter to Ketchikan Harbor seaplane base. During the flight, cruising at about 4,000ft AMSL, the pilot elected to descend a little and fly close to a waterfall
near Mahoney Lake for the benefit of the passengers, but collided with a DHC-2 Beaver (N952DB) that the pilot did not see. He reported that the aircraft rolled right and pitched steeply down over George Inlet, but there was
sufficient control remaining for him to flare the aircraft before impact with the water. All the passengers except one, and the pilot, were able to evacuate the aircraft before it sank, and witnesses to the crash landing helped them
to the shore. The DHC-2 broke up in the air and all four people on it were killed.
26 Jul Seair Seaplanes Cessna Caravan (C-GURL) Addenbroke Island, Canada 1/3 1/8 ER
The aircraft, a floatplane, was chartered for a fishing trip to Calvert Island. It took off from Vancouver International Water airport heading for Hakai Pass seaplane base. The weather was overcast, windy and raining. It crashed at
Addenbroke Island, close to its intended destination.
6 Aug Alcan Air Cessna Caravan (C-FSKF) North of Mayo Lake, Yukon, Canada 1/1 1/1 ER
The aircraft hit high ground not far from its destination at Mayo airport, Yukon, having departed from Rackla airfield to the northeast. The aircraft is believed to have been carrying a surveyor for a mining company.

Seronera airstrip, Serengeti,

23 Sep Auric Air Cessna Caravan (5H-AAM) 1/1 1/1 TO
Tanzania
The aircraft crashed shortly after take-off. Auric Air’s main business is transporting passengers on safari holidays.

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
Fatal accidents: regional and commuter operations
Archipielagos Servicios
16 Apr B-N Islander (CC-CYR) Puerto Montt airport, Chile 1/5 1/5 C
Aereos
Shortly after take-off from Puerto Montt for a local flight to Ayacara, the aircraft – steeply nose-down – crashed into a residential area close to the airport, killing everyone on board.

27 Jun Angara Airlines Antonov An-24 (RA-47366) Nizhneangarsk airport, Russia 2/0 4/43 L
Inbound from Ulan Ude the crew reported failure of the aircraft’s No 1 engine. The twin-turboprop touched down to the right of the runway 22 centreline, with the tyres on the right main gear failing. It veered right off the runway,
hitting buildings and catching fire. The captain and the flight engineer were killed, but all the passengers escaped. Some 22 of the passengers were injured, of which 14 required medical treatment.
17 Oct PenAir Saab 2000 (N686PA) Unalaska airport, Dutch Harbor, USA 0/1 3/39 L
Inbound from Anchorage, the aircraft overran the end of runway 13 on its second attempt at an approach. The wind was reported to be 300° at 24kt, so there was an unusually high tailwind component, and the aircraft touched
down some 600m from the runway threshold where the tyres left skid marks. It came to a halt at the edge of Dutch Harbor, having crossed a road. As the aircraft overran – about 26s after touchdown – its left-hand propeller
struck a road sign, and possibly a signal post, losing three of its six blades. At least two blades hit the fuselage, one sticking in the structure and the other entering the passenger cabin. The third missing blade was retrieved
from the water. Two people were badly injured, and one of them died of the injuries the next day.
24 Nov Busy Bee Congo Dornier 228-200 (9S-GNH) Near Goma, DR Congo 2/15 2/15 C
Shortly after take-off from runway 17 at Goma for a domestic flight to Beni, the aircraft crashed into a residential area close to the airport, killing everyone on board and between eight and 10 people on the ground.

24 Dec Calafia Airlines Cessna Caravan (XA-TWN) 50 miles west of Hermosillo, Mexico 1/1 1/1 ER
The aircraft took off from Hermosillo, bound for Guerrero Negro airport, and contact was lost. The aircraft was later found to have hit high ground near the coast of the Gulf of California.

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
Fatal accidents: non-passenger flights
14 Jan Saha Air Boeing 707-300 (EP-CPP) Fat’h airport, Iran 15 16 L
The 707, operating a cargo flight for the Iranian air force, landed on runway 31 at Fat’h airport when its destination was runway 30 at Payam airport. The two airports are about 1.6 miles (2.5km) apart, but the intended
destination runway at Payam was nearly 3,700m long while runway 31 at Fat’h is only 1,300m. The aircraft ran off the end of the runway, through a wall and stopped in a housing area. The two runways are amost in line with each
other, and last year a Taban Airlines Boeing MD-88 nearly made exactly the same mistake, but carried out a go-around and landed on 30 at Payan.
21 Jan Priority Air Charter Douglas Turbine DC-3 (N467KS) Kidron-Stoltzfus airfield, Ohio, USA 2 2 TO
Departing for a ferry flight to Akron/Canton airport, Ohio, a witness reported that white smoke issued from the aircraft’s left engine soon after take-off from runway 19. The aircraft began to veer left and lost height, crashing
about 200m from the runway end.

Bek Air Fokker 100 left 14

dead and 22 injured after
accident on take-off at Almaty
Shutterstock

flightglobal.com 21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 31

AIRLINE SAFETY

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Fatalities (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
31 miles east of Miami Opa-Locka,
8 Feb Conquest Air Cargo Convair C-131 (N145GT) 1 2 ER
Florida, USA
En route from Nassau, Bahamas to Miami Opa Locka Executive airport the crew had problems with the left engine propeller control system, but found a way of continuing the flight despite this. When they began to descend, the
right engine backfired and started surging, so they shut it down. Then the left engine began to do the same and the crew realised they were committed to ditching. The co-pilot transmitted a mayday call. The captain did not
survive the ditching, but the co-pilot, who did, described the impact as violent, and said the tail separated and the fuselage rapidly began to fill with water. The co-pilot managed to disembark, taking the life raft with him.
23 Feb Amazon Prime Air Boeing 767-300ERF (N1217A) Trinity Bay, Texas, USA 3 3 ER
The aircraft, operated by Atlas Air for Amazon Prime Air, was en route from Miami to Houston. It began a descent for Houston cleared for a vectored approach (avoiding weather) to runway 26L. When established in the descent,
the crew were advised that they needed to descend expeditiously to 3,000ft if they wanted to clear the weather by flying to the west of it as they had requested. They took up a vector heading of 270°, and acknowledged the
advice that they should expect a turn to the north to make a base leg for 26L when clear of the weather. The aircraft’s descent appeared to be arrested at about 6,000ft, with an airspeed of 230kt, and automatic dependent
surveillance – broadcast returns indicate it began a slight climb. Then the power increased to maximum, the aircraft pitched up about 4°, then began pitching nose-down in response to elevator deflection, eventually reaching a
49° nose-down attitude. There was no indication of a stall warning nor stick-shaker. Now in a steep descent with wings level, the aircraft reached a maximum speed of 430kt before crashing in swampy ground, but the nose-
down attitude had been reduced to about 20° before impact. There was no communication from the aircraft from about the time it levelled at 6,000ft, and radar contact was also lost at that time. There was no emergency call at
any time. The NTSB is investigating the possibility that the go-around button on the power levers was triggered unintentionally when the aircraft levelled at 6,000ft, and the sudden linear acceleration caused by the power
increase produced somatogravic illusion in the pilots. That illusion is caused by linear acceleration acting on the human balance organs, creating the illusion (in this case) that the aircraft is pitching nose up.
14 Apr Summit Air Let L-410 (9N-AMH) Lukla airport, Nepal 1 3 TO
Just after the aircraft began its take-off roll on the steep downhill runway 24, it veered sharply to the right and fell down an embankment onto the helicopter ramp. There it struck a Manang Air Airbus Helicopters AS350B3e
(9N-ALC) which was in the process of shutting down after landing. A second, parked AS350 (9N-ALK) of Shree Airlines was apparently also damaged. The L-410 had only the two pilots and another crew member on board to
carry out a ferry flight, and the co-pilot was killed in the collision. Two people on the helipad were also killed.
Ferreteria e Implementos
11 Sep Convair CV-440 (N24DR) Near Toledo airport, Ohio, USA 2 2 RA
San Francisco
The cargo aircraft, inbound from Millington Memphis airport, was approaching runway 25 at night, cleared to land, but hit treetops and crashed some 0.6 miles short of the runway. The crew had not reported problems at any
time.

18 Sep Carpediem Aviation Viking Air Twin Otter 400 (PK-CDC) New Guinea, Indonesia 4 4 ER

The aircraft disappeared during a cargo flight from Tembagapura to Ilaga. It was later found to have collided with high ground at about 13,000ft on the track between the two airports.

4 Oct Ukraine Air Alliance Antonov An-12 (UR-CAH) Lviv airport, Ukraine 5 8 RA

Inbound from Vigo, Spain, the aircraft was making a night approach to runway 31 at Lviv in fog, visibility 800m. It crashed about 1 mile short of the runway in what appears to have been a forced landing with fuel exhaustion.

Cessna 208B Super Cargomaster

9 Dec Martinaire Aviation Northeast of Victoria, Texas, USA 1 1 ER
(N4602B)
The aircraft took off from Victoria regional airport, Texas, en route to Houston international airport. It never reached its flight planned altitude, and according to flight tracking service Flightaware its climb phase was erratic in
both speed and vertical profile. Before impact, about 14min from take-off, it entered a rapid descent with increasing speed.
Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Injuries (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
Significant non-fatal accidents/incidents (all commercial airline categories)
7 Jan RAF-Avia Saab 340 (YL-RAF) Savolinna airport, Finland 0 2 L
Directional control was apparently lost during the landing roll, the aircraft veered off the runway and collided with a snow bank. The accident happened in darkness (04:50 local time) and IMC. Wind 220°/5kt, visibility 2,500m in snow,
cloud, broken at 500ft and overcast at 1,500ft, temperature and dew point -2°C. The aircraft was operating a positioning flight from Riga, Latvia.
23 Jan Air Creebec DHC Dash 8 (C-GTCO) Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec, Canada 0/0 3/6 TO
Directional control was lost during the take-off roll on runway 26 and the aircraft veered off the left side of the runway. The left propeller struck what is believed to have been a snow berm, and one of the blades broke up, with
debris penetrating the cabin.
28 Jan Air Europa ATR 72-500 (EC-LYJ) Palma de Mallorca, Spain 0/0 4/61 L
Inbound from Valencia, Spain, operated by Swiftair for Air Europa, the aircraft ran off the right side of the runway but later regained it, and taxied to the stand. The aircraft suffered serious damage to the landing gear and
fuselage, and the hydraulic system was also affected.

Charter flight from Guantanamo Bay

carrying US service personnel and families
Shutterstock

overran on landing at NAS Jacksonville

32 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com

 ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS 2019

Flightcrew of Saab 340 operated

by RAF-Avia are thought to have
lost control on landing at Savolinna

Shutterstock
Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Injuries (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
28 Jan Kalitta Charters Boeing 727-200F (N720CK) Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA 0 4 L
The aircraft landed with the nose gear retracted despite the undercarriage warning horn sounding and sink rate warnings. The NTSB’ s interim report comments that the gear failed to unlock from its retracted position, and
notes that the flightcrew operating manual warns that if the gear and flaps are selected down at the same time while the engines are set close to idle the hydraulic pumps may not produce sufficient pressure to unlock the nose
gear. The co-pilot prompted the captain to carry out a go-around but he did not, and earlier the flight engineer had recommended that they should recycle the gear but the captain declined to do so. It seems the captain had the
idea that faulty microswitches were the cause of the indication that the nose gear was not down. The same aircraft with a different crew making an approach to Tuscaloosa the day before reported a similar experience before
landing, but they elected to recycle the gear, and having done so got a normal gear-down indication.
8 Feb Novair Airbus A321neo (SE-RKA) Billund airport, Denmark 0/0 ?/? L
Inbound from Lanzarote, the Canary Islands, the aircraft was landing on runway 27 in a strong crosswind. The landing was heavy and the tail struck the runway.

1 Mar Laudamotion Airbus A320 (OE-LOA) London Stansted airport, UK 0/0 6/169 TO
The crew aborted take-off at fairly low speed following failure of the left CFM International CFM56 engine. Passengers reported a loud bang and flames emitted from the jetpipe. The captain ordered passenger evacuation on
the runway.

Presque-Isle Northern Maine airport,

4 Mar CommutAir Embraer ERJ-145 (N14171) 0/0 3/28
USA
Following an approach in light snow inbound from Newark, the aircraft touched down between runway 01 and taxiway A and sustained substantial damage, including the separation of one of the main undercarriage legs. The
aircraft was operating a United Express flight.

Little Grand Rapids airport, Manitoba,

4 Mar Amik Aviation Cessna Caravan (C-FAFV) 1/0 1/6 RA
Canada
The aircraft was flying from Winnipeg to Little Grand Rapids on a VFR flightplan. It was approaching runway 36 at its destination, but struck the ice-covered surface of Family Lake short of the runway. All occupants evacuated
and were taken to the airport.
19 Mar Iran Air Fokker 100 (EP-IDG) Tehran Mehrabad airport, Iran 1/2 9/24 L
Inbound from Qeshm, partial hydraulic failure meant the crew could not lower the undercarriage. The aircraft landed safely with its gear up.

Dominica Douglas Charles airport,

8 Apr Sky High Aviation BAe Jetstream 41 (HI1038) 0/0 ?/? L
Dominica
Inbound from Santo Domingo, the aircraft suffered a problem landing on runway 27 and came to rest on its belly just off the side of the runway. The accident happened in daylight and in VMC.

10 Apr American Airlines Airbus A321 (N114NN) John F Kennedy airport, USA 0/0 8/101 TO
The aircraft rolled to the left on take-off from runway 31L and its left wing struck a runway sign. The aircraft recovered to a safe climb and returned to the airport. The accident happened in darkness (20:40 local time) but good
visibility. It was scheduled to operate a flight to Los Angeles, California.

Vancouver International airport,

19 Apr American Airlines Boeing 737-800 (N871NN) 0/0 ?/? TO
Canada
Shortly after take-off from runway 26L at Vancouver, British Columbia, the crew reported that the system A hydraulic system fluid quantity had reduced to 23% and the anti-skid inoperative light had come on. ATC subsequently
reported that tyre fragments and a hydraulic line support bracket had been found on the runway. An emergency was declared and, as the aircraft would have been overweight on landing if it immediately returned to Vancouver,
the decision was made to divert to Seattle, Washington, where a safe landing was made. The aircraft was operating a flight to Chicago, Illinois. The No 2 tyre on the left main undercarriage was confirmed to have burst during
the take-off roll at Vancouver, resulting in multiple severed hydraulic lines and damage to supports and wire harnesses in the left wheel well. There was additional damage to the left wing inboard flap, left horizontal stabiliser and
lower wing panels.

Desert 25 miles east of Khartoum,

22 Apr Asia Airways Antonov An-26 (EY-322) 0 5 ER
Sudan
The aircraft was operating a ferry flight from Djibouti to Khartoum but, when about 180nm from Khartoum, the pilot became concerned about the fuel state and advised ATC. When about 40nm from Khartoum, both of the
aircraft’s engines flamed out, apparently due to fuel exhaustion. The captain carried out a forced landing in the open desert with the undercarriage retracted. It is reported that, earlier in the flight, the co-pilot had become ill and
left the cockpit, and the emergency was handled by the captain alone.

Bacha Khan airport, Peshawar,

23 Apr Airblue Airbus A320 (AP-EDA) 0/0 6/144 L
Pakistan
The aircraft overran runway 35 on landing. The accident happened in darkness (19:30 local time), wind 310°/18kt, visibility 4,000m in rain showers, cloud few cumulo-nimbus at 3,500ft and broken at 9,000ft. The aircraft was
operating a flight from Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates.
24 Apr Keewatin Air Beechcraft King Air (C-FRMV) Gillam airport, Manitoba, Canada 0/0 2/2 L
The aircraft was flying a positioning medevac flight from Winnipeg to Churchill with two pilots and two paramedics when the crew declared a fuel emergency and elected to divert to Gillam airport. The aircraft landed short of
runway 23 on the ice of Stephens Lake, but hit a berm close to the runway threshold and suffered damage. The TSB has released initial information to the effect that the crew failed to take on sufficient fuel for the flight.
3 May Miami Air International Boeing 737-800 (N732MA) NAS Jacksonville, Florida, USA 0/0 7/136 L
This chartered flight inbound from Leeward Point, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, overran runway 10 and come to a halt in the shallow waters of the St Johns River. The aircraft was originally cleared to land on the reciprocal runway
(28), but then requested 10. ATC cleared the aircraft as requested, but advised the crew that runway 10 had a displaced threshold because arrester gear is installed near the beginning of 10, which reduced the landing
distance by 366m to 2,380m, and the runway was wet. There was also a 15kt tailwind on 10, and the crew could not use reverse thrust because the starboard thrust reverser was logged as inoperative. There is a 300m paved
overrun area followed by 75m of levelled grass before a drop of about 10ft down the bank of the river. The aircraft was bringing service personnel and their families back home from Guantanamo Bay. No-one was injured but the
damage to the aircraft was substantial enough for it to be written off.

flightglobal.com 21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 33

AIRLINE SAFETY

Serious bird strike prompted

forced landing of Ural Airlines
A321 after both engines failed

Shutterstock
Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Injuries (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
Near Hay River, Norwest Territories,
3 May Buffalo Airways Douglas DC-3 (C-GJKM) 2 2 C
Canada
As the aircraft was climbing following take-off from Hay River bound for Yellowknife, the left engine lost power and was shut down. When the crew applied more power to the remaining engine it began to run rough. The crew
declared an emergency and said they were returning to Hay River, but were forced to land about 4 miles from the airfield. The aircraft was substantially damaged but the crew were unharmed.

Encampment near Kuujjuarapik,

7 May Air Inuit De Havilland Viking 0 2 TO
Canada
One of the aircraft’s skis caught in the snow during the take-off roll at a remote camp site 31nm north northeast of Kuujjuarapik, Quebec, and the nose wheel was torn off. The aircraft veered off the prepared strip into deeper
snow before coming to rest. The aircraft also sustained substantial damage to its left wing, engine and propeller. The accident happened in daylight (14:30 local time) VMC. The intended flight was a return to Kuujjuarapik.

Yangon Mingaladon airport,

8 May Biman Bangladesh DHC Dash 8 Q400 (S2-AGQ) 1/10 4/31 L
Myanmar
Inbound from Dhaka, Bangladesh, the aircraft landed on runway 21 at Yangon and ran off the side. The landing took place at about sunset in heavy rain, reduced visibility and high winds caused by thunderstorm activity close to the
airport. At this stage it is not clear whether the weather caused the problem with the landing. The aircraft was damaged beyond repair, with the fuselage broken in two places, a wing collapsed and the main gear smashed.
10 May Jazz DHC Dash 8-300 (C-FJXZ) Toronto Pearson airport, Canada 1/3 5/54 G
The aircraft, operated for Air Canada Express by Jazz Aviation, took off from Pearson just after 23:00 local time, but elected to return because visibility at its destination airport (Sudbury) was below limits. The Dash 8 landed just
before 01:30 local time, and as the aircraft was taxiing to its stand in the dark and poor visibility it collided with a fuel truck, causing damage to the truck and the left side of the cockpit. The impact caused the aircraft to swing
around, and the left propeller and left rear cargo door were also both damaged. There were four injuries on the aircraft and one in the truck.

Murtala Muhammad airport, Lagos,

15 May Air Peace Boeing 737-300 (5N-BUK) 0/0 ?/? L
Nigeria
Inbound from Port Harcourt at night, the crew were warned by ATC that windshear was likely. The aircraft touched down hard, right wing low, on runway 18R and its right engine struck the ground. The preliminary report states
that the co-pilot called for a go-around but the captain overruled him. The landing was completed safely and the aircraft taxied to the gate for normal passenger disembarkation. The accident happened in daylight (18:33 local
time). The engine had suffered damage, and the main landing gear oleo struts collapsed. The aircraft was withdrawn from service, but the authorities were not advised of the event until a passenger told them about it three
weeks later. The investigation continues.

Piarco airport, Port of Spain, Trinidad

30 May Venezolana Boeing 737-200 (YV502T) 0/0 5/79 C
& Tobago
The No 1 engine reportedly suffered an uncontained failure during the climb after take-off from Piarco International airport, Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago. The aircraft returned and landed safely. The accident happened in
daylight VMC.
15 Jun United Airlines Boeing 757-200 (N26123) Newark Liberty airport, NJ, USA 0/0 166 L
Inbound from Denver, the aircraft landed heavily on runway 22L at about 13:00 local time, bounced twice, and many of the tyres burst. It then swerved partially off the runway to the left before coming to a halt. No-one was
injured. There was significant damage to the undercarriage, particularly the nose gear, which appears to have been pushed upward into the fuselage slightly. There was a moderate wind more or less down the runway, and the
visibility was more than 5nm.

Eduardo Gomes airport, Manaus,

15 Jun MAP Linhas Aereas ATR 42-300 (PR-MPN) 0/0 4/34 L
Brazil
The aircraft reportedly developed a “technical problem” shortly after take-off from Manaus. The pilot elected to return and the aircraft landed on runway 11 with its undercarriage retracted. The accident happened in daylight
(12:08 local time) on a flight scheduled to Carauari, Brazil
18 Jun Porter Airlines DHC Dash 8 Q400 (C-GLQB) Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 0/0 4/59 L
The aircraft was en route from Montreal to Billy Bishop Toronto City airport when the flightcrew reported hydraulic problems, declared an emergency and diverted to Hamilton, where they landed on runway 30. During the
landing roll all the aircraft’s main landing gear tyres blew, and the aircraft came to a halt on the runway, according to the TSB.
21 Jun North Star Air Turbine DC-3 (Basler) (C-FKGL) Eabamet Lake, Ontario, Canada 0 2 ER
The aircraft developed engine problems during a ferry flight and the crew elected to ditch in Eabamet Lake. The aircraft came to rest partially submerged, but the crew escaped.

22 Jun Air Peace Boeing 737-500 (5N-BRN) Port Harcourt airport, Nigeria 0/0 6/94 L
The aircraft, having carried out an ILS approach to runway 21 in rain on a flight from Abuja, touched down partially off the runway 1,260m beyond the threshold, according to the investigator’s initial report. It came to rest in mud
completely off the runway to the left at a position about 1,600m from the runway threshold.
1 Jul Spice Jet Boeing 737-800 (VT-SYK) Mumbai airport, India 0/0 ?/? L

Inbound from Jaipur, the aircraft overran runway 27 at Mumbai and suffered nose wheel failure and engine cowling damage.

8 Jul Grant Aviation Cessna Caravan (N9448B) Bethel airport, Alaska, USA 0/0 1/5 L
Inbound from Newtok, the pilot was intent on carrying out a visual approach to runway 12, and intentionally flew slightly high in the pattern because the visibility was poor and there was high ground in the vicinity. This resulted in
a steep, full-flap approach, and when the aircraft floated on the flare the pilot initiated a go-around because there was insufficient runway ahead to land. When the pilot announced the go-around, the controller instructed him to
turn left immediately, but when he did so the right wing stalled and the aircraft hit the ground, coming to rest on its side. Seeing fire starting the pilot helped the passengers to escape through the left cargo door, which they did
before fire engulfed the aircraft.

34 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com

 ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS 2019

Date Carrier Aircraft type/registration Location Injuries (crew/pax) Total occupants (crew/pax) Phase
Pakistan International
20 Jul ATR 42-500 (AP-BHP) Gilgit airport, Pakistan 0/0 ?/? L
Airlines
The aircraft ran off the side of runway 25 and came to rest with right wing low and damage to the No 2 propeller.

23 Jul Air Peace Boeing 737-300 (5N-BQO) Lagos international airport, Nigeria 0/0 6/133 L
Inbound from Port Harcourt in daylight with heavy rain, the aircraft was first cleared to land on runway 18L, but the clearance was altered to 18R because it had better visibility. The captain has stated to the investigator that she
took control from the co-pilot when the 50ft and 30ft radio altitude callouts were made because the aircraft was not lined up with the centreline. She added that visibility was momentarily degraded during touchdown. During the
landing run the nose wheels broke off, the surface suffered serious damage as a result, and the aircraft came to a halt on the runway. Initial safety recommendations by the investigators remind pilots of the need to adhere
strictly to the go-around SOP if the approach is destabilised below 1,000ft.
27 Jul Sierra West Airlines Swearingen Metro III (N681TR) El Paso airport, Texas, USA 0 3 L
After take-off for a base training flight the gear failed to retract and there was a hydraulic system alert. On landing, the left main gear leg collapsed and the aircraft swerved left off the runway, sustaining substantial damage.

1 Aug Everts Air Cargo Douglas DC-6 (N451CE) Near Candle airport, Alaska, USA 0 0 L
The aircraft hit a berm with its landing gear on final approach and suffered major damage.

6 Aug Tropical Air Cessna Caravan (5H-NOW) Mafia airport, Tanzania 0/6 1/8 TO
The aircraft crashed during take-off for a reason that is not yet clear. It caught fire and was destroyed, but the passengers and crew managed to escape in time.

Near Moscow Zhukovsky airport,

15 Aug Ural Airlines Airbus A321 (VQ-BOZ) 0/0 8/226 C
Russia
The aircraft suffered a heavy bird strike very soon after take-off from runway 12 and lost power on both engines. The crew carried out a gear-up forced landing more or less straight ahead in a flat cornfield. All the passengers
were safely evacuated, although some needed first aid treatment, according to reports. There was no fuel spillage nor fire, but fire and rescue teams damped down the engines when they arrived. Buses were dispatched to
carry the passengers and crew back to the airport. The flight was designated U6178 from Moscow to Simferopol in Crimea, Ukraine.
16 Aug Safarilink DHC Dash 8-200 (5Y-SLM) Kichwa Tembo airfield, Kenya 0/0 2/? L
Inbound from Nairobi Wilson airport, the aircraft hit several wildebeest on the runway when landing, causing the left main gear leg to collapse. The left engine and propeller were damaged, but none of the aircraft’s occupants
were hurt.
18 Aug Delta Air Lines Boeing 757-200 (N543US) Ponta Delgada airport, Azores 0/0 ?/? L
A particularly hard landing on runway 12 caused fuselage distortion.

18 Aug Mokulele Airlines Cessna Caravan (N879MA) Kapalua airport, Hawaii, USA 0/0 2/8 L
Inbound from Honolulu, the aircraft overran the end of runway 02 and continued down a slope into undergrowth. Both pilots admit the aircraft was fast on the approach and made a late touchdown on the runway, which is short
at about 914m. They reported that selecting the power lever to ground idle did not appear to put the propeller into the high-drag beta range, and selecting reverse thrust failed to work.
22 Aug Smartwings Boeing 737-800 (OK-TVO) Over Aegean Sea 0/0 ?/170? ER
The aircraft, en route from Samos to Prague, was in the cruise at 36,000ft when the crew reported that the No 1 engine shut down. An initial report by the Czech investigator says the crew attempted relight but it did not work.
The crew obtained clearance for the aircraft to drift down to 24,000ft but did not declare an emergency nor describe the problem. They then continued the cruise to their destination, which took 2h 20min, passing close to
potential diversion airports at Sofia, Belgrade, Zagreb, Budapest and Vienna. Eventually the crew declared a pan emergency once they were within the Prague FIR. Investigators found a fuel pump failure and obstruction of a
fuel filter, but the investigation continues.
International Air
25 Aug Lockheed C-130A Hercules (N119TG) Near Santa Maria, California, USA 0/0 2/5 ER
Response
Just as the 60-year-old aircraft was approaching cruising level on a ferry flight to its Phoenix base for C-check maintenance, there was a loud bang and the engine torque readings began to fluctuate. Hydraulic mist and smoke
appeared in the freight bay, and there were anomalous readings relating to several systems, including fire warnings. The crew turned off the engine bleeds and passengers donned oxygen masks. Because hydraulic pressure
was fluctuating the crew lowered the gear while they still could. They obtained three green lights for the gear lock-down, but the right gear had taken a long time to lower. The crew declared an emergency and diverted to Santa
Barbara, asking for vectors. Feathering the No 4 propeller stopped a tendency for the aircraft to fluctuate in yaw. The final approach was made flapless, and on touchdown the aircraft yawed to the right and exited the runway. To
stop it continuing towards the main terminal parking area the captain ground-looped the aircraft. The emergency services had to extinguish a fire, but all the occupants escaped unharmed. Subsequent investigation identified a
failure in the No 3 engine bleed air duct as the cause of the multiple failures and alerts, because hot air had affected nearby electrical looms and hydraulic lines.
16 Sep TwoFlex Cessna Caravan (PT-MHC) Manaus, Brazil 0/0 2/8 TO
The aircraft came down in scrub immediately after a daytime take-off, but no-one was hurt. There was thunderstorm activity close by.

30 Sep Mocambique Expresso Embraer ERJ-145 (C9-MEH) Maputo, Mozambique 0/0 4/25 L
Directional control was lost during the landing roll on runway 05 at Maputo, Mozambique, and the aircraft ran off the left side of the runway into scrub. The accident happened in daylight (16:50 local time) VMC; wind 130°/15kt,
gusting to 25kt, and good visibility. The aircraft was operating a scheduled service (TM165) from Nacala, Mozambique.
11 Oct Silverstone Air Services Fokker 50 (5Y-IZO) Nairobi Wilson airport, Kenya 0/2 5/50 TO
The aircraft, on a scheduled flight to Mombasa, veered off runway 14, aborted take-off and came to rest about 300m beyond the end of the runway. It was deemed to be beyond repair. Following another incident shortly after,
the Kenyan aviation authority carried out a safety audit on the carrier and temporarily suspended operation of Silverstone’s fleet of six DHC Dash 8s. Its four Fokker 50s are still operating.
18 Oct Atlantic Air Cargo Douglas DC-3 (N437GB) Near Nassau International airport 0 2 RA
Inbound from Miami Opa Locka airport, the aircraft ditched in the sea about 2nm from the airport while on final approach. The aircraft sank but the crew escaped uninjured.

27 Oct Abeer Air Services Let L-410 (YI-BYO) Over South Sudan 0 4 ER
The aircraft was substantially damaged in an apparent forced landing in the bush some 6.5nm south of Bor, South Sudan. The aircraft was en route from Walgak to Juba, South Sudan, but because of bad weather at Juba, the
crew elected to divert to Bor, about 80nm north of Juba. However, on arrival at Bor, the flight encountered heavy thunderstorms and was unable to land at the airport. The accident happened in daylight. It force-landed in rain
among bushes and tall grass, suffering irreparable damage.
5 Nov Air Peace Boeing 737-500 (5N-BUJ) En route near Lagos, Nigeria 0/0 6/90 ER
The aircraft suffered engine failure en route from Lagos to Owerri and returned to Lagos. Nigerian investigators are taking a particular interest in this event because it is one of several serious mishaps involving the airline in 2019.

11 Nov American Eagle Embraer ERJ-145LR (N619AE) Chicago O’Hare Int’l airport, Illinois 0/0 3/38 L
Inbound from Greenborough, North Carolina, the aircraft made an approach to runway 10L with a fairly strong crosswind from the left. After landing, the aircraft swung left off the runway.

21 Nov Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 (TC-JGZ) Odessa International airport, Ukraine 0/0 134 L
Inbound from Istanbul, the aircraft ran off the runway’s left-hand side in strong, gusting crosswinds from the east. The aircraft came to rest with its nose wheel collapsed and only its right main gear on the runway. The
passengers were evacuated by emergency slides.

Near Los Angeles International

21 Nov Philippine Airlines Boeing 777-300ER (RP-C7775) 0/0 18/342 C
airport, USA
Soon after take-off for Manila, the Philippines, the aircraft suffered repeated dramatic surging in its No 2 GE Aviation GE90 engine, which spewed flame with each surge. The crew declared a mayday, shut the engine down and
landed back at Los Angeles on runway 25L. Take-off had been from 25R.

Sachigo Lake airport, Ontario,

3 Dec North Star Air Basler BT-67 Turbo DC-3 (C-FKAL) 0 2 RA
Canada
The aircraft collided with trees and crashed among scrub while on approach to runway 10 at Sachigo Lake, Ontario. The point of impact was about 500m southwest of the airport. The accident happened in daylight (09:10 local
time). The aircraft was operating a flight from Red Lake, Ontario.
10 Dec ASKY Airlines DHC Dash 8-200 (ET-AQC) Juba, South Sudan 0/0 5/16 TO
Directional control was lost during take-off from runway 31 at Juba. The aircraft ran off the side of the runway onto soft ground and came to rest with its left main undercarriage collapsed. The accident happened in daylight but in
“poor” weather, with reports of strong, gusting winds and heavy rain. The runway was very wet and may have been contaminated by standing water. The aircraft was operating a service (ET357) to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
28 Dec Air Fast Congo Let L-410 (9S-GDX) Kamina airport, DR Congo 0/0 2/16 L
The aircraft ran off the side of the runway 25 and came to rest with the left wingtip resting on the ground, the nose gear collapsed and the left main gear stuck in soft ground.

flightglobal.com 21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 35

STRAIGHT&LEVEL

From yuckspeak to tales of yore, send your offcuts to murdo.morrison@flightglobal.com

Bill Johnson/ANL/Shutterstock
Cracking the Polar exploration
M. Charcot thinks it
airport codes probable that the British
Following our appeal to readers explorers will
for theories about seemingly attack the
baffling airport codes, we have South Pole like
had several replies, including Scott, from Ross
from Pete Coe, who describes Bay. In regard to a non-
himself as a “geriatric ATCO”. stop flight out and back,
“Blame the Brits,” he says. M. Charcot says: “Of
The convention dates from the course, that is possible,
1950s when there were three but the British explorers
flight information regions in the may, and probably will,
UK, namely: London, Preston, prefer to do it by stages.“
and Scottish. Each one had a
parent communications centre Air/sea rescue
that fed the main airfields The presence of a helicopter
within the FIR. The parent in the vicinity of any major
airfield would always have the marine tragedy
same double letter, so would
Birmingham was EGBB, Jersey unquestionably
EGJJ, and so on, while the result in saving
satellites had an individual final many lives. The helicopter
letter. Alderney, in the Channel Not sure Lorraine knows either can pick up survivors without
Isles, was thus EGJA. difficulty either from rough
“Sometimes, these were water or the deck of a
obvious, as with Alderney,” disabled vessel. When filled
says our correspondent. “Other Metal fencing to capacity, the helicopter
times you had to work it out a The UK Royal Air Force’s latest can still drop food or drugs
bit. Norwich – EGSH – is recruit is none other than Bruce into the very hands of men
Horsham St Faith backwards, Dickinson, lead singer of rock on life rafts.
obviously.” RAF Horsham St band Iron Maiden, commercial
Faith became Norwich airport pilot, and serial entrepreneur in Jumbo jet arrives
in the early 1960s. aviation businesses, including Mixed emotions arising
Some are even less “obvious”. Hybrid Air Vehicles and his from continual engine
“Ah, Luton – EGWW,” says Coe. own MRO and training concern problems
“I’ll pass on that one.” in Cardiff, Caerdav. eye, as in this industry bulletin attended the
Doug Brown, meanwhile, At the invitation of RAF forwarded to us by Peter Boeing 747’s
submits another puzzler from Fencing, the heavy metal Dickinson. first visit to
the other end of the world. superstar has been awarded the London on January 12. But
“Why is RAF Mount Pleasant rank of honorary group captain “Clipper Constitution”
EGYP, while Port Stanley in 601 Sqn so he can compete Deserted disgorged its 362
airfield is SFAL?” he asks. for the service in tournaments, Airbus’s recent new year shindig passengers with little
“They sit together on an island including July’s Inter Service projected its achievements from difficulty and the temporary
just 2,500 square miles in size.” Championships. the past year onto big screens handling arrangements
The 61-year-old has fenced around the venue. Highlights seemed to work well.
since taking up the sport at included launching the
school aged 13 and he has A321XLR, the start of serial No-fly patrols
participated in a number of production on the H160 The RAF has surpassed
international competitions. helicopter and continued 5,000 flight hours in
No doubt he will be trying to maturity of the A350. To illustrate Operation
make his opponents run to the the last point was footage of a Warden, to
hills. number of new customer aircraft, provide a safe
including those for Etihad; jets haven for Kurds
Amy Harris /Invision/AP/Shutterstock

that when we last looked were in northern Iraq. Following

Count ‘em
No, it’s not Seattle’s surprise
solution for getting its grounded
narrowbody back in the air.
Sometimes the words and
Group Captain Dickinson to you pictures just don’t see eye to
being placed into storage in the an initial deployment of
desert somewhere… And yes, Sepecat Jaguars, British
that’s the same Etihad that in Aerospace Harrier GR.7s
2019 cancelled 42 orders for the were deployed to Incirlik air
big twin. Certainly a highlight in base in April 1993.
any year!

36 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com

flight.international@flightglobal.com
We welcome your letters on any
aspect of the aerospace industry.
Please write to:
The Editor, Flight International,
1st Floor, Chancery House,
St Nicholas Way, Sutton,
Surrey, SM1 1JB, UK
Or email:
flight.international@flightglobal.com
The opinions on this page do not
necessarily represent those of the editor.
Letters without a full postal address sup-
plied may not be published. Letters may
also be published on flightglobal.com
and must be no longer than 250 words.
Competition
is vital
If Boeing has produced an
airliner in the 737 Max that is
aerodynamically unsound and
must be “helped” by add-on
computer fixes, can the airframe
itself be modified?
Only lengthening the undercar-
riage sufficiently would allow the
plump turbofans to be tucked
more under the wing in the man-
ner of the Airbus A320, which
just happened to have longer legs.
Such changes would take years
and be too costly for Boeing and its
customers. I fear this version of the
737 will not be allowed to fly
again. Great for Airbus and the
public? No. Lively and continuing
competition between the two is
essential for everyone.
David Stevens
via email
Root cause
Your article “Fog of War” (Flight
International, 14-20 January)
rightly argues that the investiga-
tion into the loss of Ukraine Inter-
national Airlines Flight PS752 on
8 January should be clearly sepa-
rated from political tensions.
Start your journey today
Register at ,QDUƃKIJVINQDCNEQOTGIKUVGT
Start your journey today Register at ,QDUƃKIJVINQDCNEQOTGIKUVGT
flightglobal.com
LETTERS
Get in touch
Many thanks for printing the
letter from the chairman of the
Fresson Trust, Grenville
Johnston, “A passion for
Fresson” (Flight International,
7-13 January).
As secretary of the trust, I
would like to inform those
Boeing
readers who wish to get in touch
Boeing should have been prepared for ‘inevitable setbacks’ to contact us through our website
at fressontrust.org.uk.
STRATEGY
We are also developing a Face-
No exemption from scrutiny book page and are in the process
of developing a Twitter account.
I think back to the time when Boeing set out to be the only US Chris Birks
manufacturer of passenger airliners, so a host of companies via email
disappeared from the sector – Lockheed, Douglas, and
Convair, to name a few – and there they were.
On a witch hunt
But the bigger you are, the harder you fall. Of course,
no-one in the company expected such a thing as the 737 Max It may be invidious to cite body
disasters to happen, but perhaps in hindsight, a little more counts in defence of Boeing and
modesty on the journey – and preparing for the inevitable set- the aerospace industry in
backs that occur – might have made a difference to Boeing. general, but the inquisition into
The firm stand that the US Federal Aviation Administration the 737 Max and the US Federal
has taken on the 737 Max programme has surprised many, and Aviation Administration seems
I think Boeing has realised that no company, however big, is to be on the verge of becoming a
exempt from intense scrutiny. witch hunt.
It is a lesson for all huge companies. There can be no doubt that
W D Barbut the Maneuvering Characteristics
London, UK Augmentation System strategy,
together with the cosy relation-
ship between manufacturers
The USA must bear a major against Boeing in another case, but and their oversight led to two
responsibility for the current sit- the size of the tariffs the EU can extraordinary accidents – which
uation – significantly on account levy have yet to be determined. we all naturally agree should
of its disastrous sanctions policy. Neither ruling is surprising, as never have happened.
As a globally trusted investiga- both companies have benefited Yet, the aerospace industry
tion authority, perhaps French from favourable financial terms. should be demanding why it is
BEA involvement might provide It will be interesting to see if that Boeing, with only a few hun-
a way forward to determine the Donald Trump’s decision to block dred deaths, is being subjected to
root cause of the incident? the appointment of new judges to a degree of scrutiny that other in-
Roger Allingham-Mills the WTO’s appelate body will in- dustries whose annual body
via email fluence its future decisions. counts are numbered in the thou-
One cannot help wondering if sands, just in the USA, are not?
this is a coincidence, part of a plan Perhaps the industry could
Courting chaos to propagate chaos, or convenient begin suggesting that the chemi-
The EU and Airbus recently and timing for Boeing. Regardless, cal, pharmaceutical, mining,
predictably lost the latest round with the US manufacturer still gun, and motor manufacturing
of a subsidies case brought to the smarting from the 737 Max situa- sectors are subjected to equally
World Trade Organization (WTO) tion, any help will be welcomed. painstaking public scrutiny.
by the USA on behalf of Boeing. Richard Chandless Alan Gillott
The WTO has already ruled Creches-sur-Saone, France via email
Take your career to new levels
Register your CV and start your job search today
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 37
READER SERVICES

EVENTS EDITORIAL, ADVERTISING, PRODUCTION & READER CONTACTS

4-6 February
Routes Americas EDITORIAL Sales Support Gillian Cumming READER SERVICES
Indianapolis, Indiana, USA 1st Floor, Chancery House, St Nicholas +44 20 8092 4082 Subscriptions
routesonline.com Way, Sutton, Surrey, SM1 1JB, UK Jenny Smith
NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
11-16 February flight.international@flightglobal.com
Vice-President, North & South America
Flight International
Subscriptions, DVV Media International,
Singapore Air Show Rob Hancock
Editor Craig Hoyle PO Box 302, Haywards Heath,
Singapore +1 703 795 5155
singaporeairshow.com +44 20 8092 4075 West Sussex, RH16 3DH, UK
craig.hoyle@flightglobal.com robert.hancock@flightglobal.com
25-28 February Deputy Editor Dominic Perry Regional Sales Director Warren McEwan Subscription Enquiries
Aerospace Europe Conference +44 20 8912 2164 +1 703 836 3719 From UK: 0330 333 9533
Bordeaux, France warren.mcewan@flightglobal.com From overseas: +44 1444 475 682
dominic.perry@flightglobal.com
ceas.org/aerospaceeurope2020 Head of Strategic Content Murdo Morrison FRAeS
Fax +44 1444 445301
ITALY flightinternational.subs@quadrantsubs.com
3 March +44 20 8722 8389 Sales Manager Riccardo Laureri
A4E Aviation Summit murdo.morrison@flightglobal.com +39 (02) 236 2500 Subscription Rates
Brussels, Belgium Features Editor Dan Thisdell media@laureriassociates.it 1 Year: £145/$229/€179
flightglobal.com/a4e +44 20 8912 2168 Laureri Associates SRL, Via Vallazze 43, 2 Years: £246/$389/€304
30 March-4 April dan.thisdell@flightglobal.com 20131 Milano, Italy 3 Years: £348/$549/€429
Global Aerospace Summit Business & General Aviation Editor Kate Sarsfield Only paid subscriptions available. Cheques
Abu Dhabi, UAE +44 20 8912 2156 ISRAEL payable to Flight International
aerospacesummit.com kate.sarsfield@flightglobal.com Sales Executive Asa Talbar
Consulting Editor David Learmount +972 77 562 1900
31 March-2 April +44 7785 901787 david.learmount@ntlworld.com Fax: +972 77 562 1903
Flight International is one of FlightGlobal’s
(publishing, events and FlightJobs) products
Aircraft Interiors Expo Magazine Enquiries talbar@talbar.co.il and services.
Hamburg, Germany Talbar Media, 41 HaGiva’a St,
flight.international@flightglobal.com
aircraftinteriorsexpo.com PO Box 3184, Givat Ada 37808, Israel
31 March-5 April AIR TRANSPORT TEAM
ASIA/AUSTRALASIA
FIDAE International Air & Space Executive Editor Graham Dunn
Key Account Manager Jay Ee FlightGlobal uses data and analytics sourced
Santiago, Chile graham.dunn@flightglobal.com from Cirium.
+65 9173 3502
fidae.cl Managing Editor – Airline Business www.cirium.com
jay.ee@flightglobal.com
lewis.harper@flightglobal.com
22-26 April Air Transport Editor David Kaminski-Morrow
DVV Media International (Asia) Pte. Ltd. Flight International welcomes unsolicited
Eurasia Air Show 15 Beach Road, 2nd Floor, contributions from readers but cannot
Antalya, Turkey david.kaminski-morrow@flightglobal.com guarantee to return photographs safely.
Singapore 189677
eurasiaairshow.com
AMERICAS © and Database Rights 2020 DVV Media
RUSSIA & CIS International Ltd. All rights reserved. No
2-3 May Americas Air Transport Editor Pilar Wolfsteller
Director Arkady Komarov part of this publication may be reproduced,
Wings over Illawarra +1 510 634 3496 Tel/Fax: +7 (495) 987 3800
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in
Wollongong NSW, Australia pilar.wolfsteller@flightglobal.com any form or by any means, electronic,
komarov@worldbusinessmedia.ru mechanical, photocopying, recording or
wingsoverillawarra.com.au Americas Aerospace Editor Jon Hemmerdinger otherwise, without the prior permission in
World Business Media,
12-13 May +1 617 397 2809 Leningradsky Prospekt, 80,
writing of the publishers.

Aerospace Big Data jon.hemmerdinger@flightglobal.com Korpus G, Office 807, Registered at the Post Office as a newspaper.
Asia-Pacific Aviation Reporter Garrett Reim Moscow 125190, Russia Published by DVV Media International Ltd,
1st Floor, Chancery House, St Nicholas Way,
Bangkok, Thailand +1 571 216 5327
Sutton, Surrey, SM1 1JB, UK.
flightglobal.com/bigdata garrett.reim@flightglobal.com
RECRUITMENT Newstrade distributed by Marketforce (UK),
13-17 May ASIA/PACIFIC Head of Sales Sophie Wild 2nd Floor, 5 Churchill Place, Canary Wharf,
London, E14 5HU, UK. Tel: +44 20 3787 9001.
ILA Berlin Air Show Asia Editor Greg Waldron +44 20 8092 4087
Classified advertising prepress by CCM.
Berlin, Germany +65 9489 4153
sophie.wild@flightglobal.com Printed in Great Britain by William Gibbons
ila-berlin.de Business Development Manager and Sons Ltd
greg.waldron@flightglobal.com
Lauren Cooper
17-19 July Reporter Alfred Chua
+44 20 8092 4085
Flight International published weekly 49 issues
per year.
Royal International Air Tattoo +65 9643 4228
lauren.cooper@flightglobal.com This periodical is sold subject to the following
RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, UK alfred.chua@flightglobal.com conditions: namely that it is not, without the
airtattoo.com written consent of the publishers first given,
CIRIUM DASHBOARD EDITORIAL CLASSIFIED lent, re-sold, hired out or in any unauthorised
20-24 July Steve Goldstein, Michael Gubisch, Firdaus Hashim, Key Account Manager Jay Ee
cover by way of trade, or affixed to, or as part
Farnborough International of, any publication of advertising, literary or
SiMin Ngai, Niall O’Keeffe, Thomas Risen, +65 9173 3502 pictorial matter whatsoever. No part of the
Air Show content may be stored electronically, or
Farnborough, UK Jonathan Robins, Sophie Segal, Ellis Taylor jay.ee@flightglobal.com
reproduced or transmitted in any form without
farnboroughairshow.com the written permission of the Publisher.
FLIGHTGLOBAL.COM
ADVERTISEMENT PRODUCTION
16-20 September Online Content Manager Amber Elias
Production Manager Sean Behan
ISSN 0015-3710 (Print) ISSN 2059-3864 (Online)

Africa Aerospace & Defence +44 7816 991648

Expo
Centurion, South Africa
aadexpo.co.za
24-25 September
World Aviation Festival 2020
London, UK
terrapinn.com/conference/
aviation-festival/index.stm
28-29 October
Mexico’s Aerospace Summit
Queretaro, Mexico
mexicoaerospacesummit.com
For a full list of events see
flightglobal.com/events
amber.elias@flightglobal.com
EDITORIAL PRODUCTION
Chief Copy Editor, FlightGlobal Dan Bloch
Layout Copy Editor Tim Norman
Deputy Global Production Editor Rachel Warner
Deputy Global Digital Producer Andrew Costerton
Consulting Technical Artist Tim Hall
DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENT SALES
1st Floor, Chancery House, St Nicholas
Way, Sutton, Surrey, SM1 1JB, UK
EUROPE
Key Account Manager Grace Murphy
+44 20 8092 4080
grace.murphy@flightglobal.com
+44 20 8092 4078
DATA
Data cited in Flight International is sourced from
Cirium, a data and analytics company in the
wider travel industry. For Cirium’s data team,
please contact: Trevor Mountford
trevor.mountford@cirium.com
PUBLISHING MANAGEMENT
Managing Director Andy Salter
VP, Publishing and Conferences Mark Pilling
mark.pilling@flightglobal.com
Executive Director Content Max Kingsley-Jones
max.kingsley.jones@flightglobal.com
Commercial Director Publishing Stuart Burgess
stuart.burgess@flightglobal.com

38 | Flight International | 21-27 January 2020 flightglobal.com


WORK EXPERIENCE MOHAMMED AL HUSARY
Deftly making the right connections
Mohammed Al Husary is co-founder and executive president of UAS International Trip Support, which
provides a range of travel planning services to high-net-worth business clients in 31 countries worldwide
How did you get into aviation?
I’ve been immersed in aviation
since childhood. From the 1950s,
my father was a pioneer of aviation
and instrumental in developing
civil aviation infrastructure in
many countries in the Middle
East. He must have passed on his
passion. When I was 20, I co-
founded UAS, spurred by a vision
to offer trip support to places that
no-one had managed to before.
What does a typical day look like?
There is no typical day. Our cli-
ent demands can be last-minute,
emergency missions, or intricate,
well-planned operations that
cross continents. Basically, what-
ever the aviation need, no matter
how complex or unusual, we can
deliver. Our experience, local
and regional expertise, and glob-
al network ensures we have the
connectivity and connections to
make anything possible.
What is your biggest career
highlight?
I’m exceptionally proud of what
UAS has achieved over the past
19 years. It’s gone from a handful
of employees to a global team,
with a ground presence in 31
countries worldwide and clients
that include royalty, heads of state
and VVIPs. From a personal point
of view, I was really honoured to
be presented with the Lifetime
Achievement Award at the Sap-
phire Pegasus Business Aviation
Awards 2018, to be named in the
National Business Aviation Asso-
ciation (NBAA) Top 40 Under 40,
also that year, and to be invited to
join the board of the Middle East
Business Aviation Association.
%JGEMQWV(NKIJV+PVGTPCVKQPCNoU+OCIG5VQTG
Browse or customise a gift or memento from our %76#9#;#4%*+8'
flightglobal.com
Technology is improving efficiency and cutting costs, says Al Husary
What is next for the company?
UAS is focused on taking
business aviation to the next
level and setting a new standard
in what clients can expect from
every stage of their mission.
We’re taking all the competen-
cies we’ve developed by advanc-
ing technology in trip planning,
executive travel and air charter to
a new level to revolutionise the
customer experience. We’ll be
supporting operations to many
international events in 2020,
such as the Tokyo Olympics, the
US presidential election, and
Expo 2020 in Dubai. We will also
be continuing to grow our global
network by forming powerful al-
liances in places where demand
is high, forming mutually benefi-
cial relationships with strategic
partners globally, maintaining
of more than 1000 aircraft drawings
YYYƃKIJVINQDCNKOCIGUEQO
WORKING WEEK
suite include powerful, user-
friendly tools for communica-
tions and service co-ordination.
This technology streamlines
workflows, provides direct
access to vendors, and helps to
eliminate mistakes. Looking at
the new generation of electric
vertical take-off and landing
aircraft, we’re seeing how
digitalisation is transforming
traditional aviation and we’re
investing in being at the
forefront of how trip planning
merges with this in the future.
UAS International Trip Support
Do you have any advice for
young people coming into the
industry?
I think the best advice to give
young people coming into the
industry – or any industry – is
that they must have passion and
our network of best-in-class purpose. In other words, you
suppliers and adding to our must have a “why” to be disrup-
number of international stations. tive. Ask yourself why you want
The importance of further to be involved in this industry…
developing goals around sustain- what problem do you want to
ability will also be a priority for solve? Once you have your
us throughout 2020. “why”, then you must consider
How do you see trip planning the “how”. This is where commit-
evolving? ment and work ethic come in; you
For something that was still must assume responsibility for
done in a traditional way until your own self-development.
recently, technology has taken it Never doubt that you can make a
to an entirely different level – huge difference. Q
making it easier, faster, more ef- Looking for a job in aerospace?
ficient, and, importantly, more Check out our listings online at
cost effective. We developed our flightglobal.com/jobs
technology suite, UAS Evolu-
tion, to eradicate the pain points If you would like to feature in
of traditional trip planning. Our Working Week, or you know
flagship product, UAS Flight someone who would, email
Evolution, is a flight planning your pitch to kate.sarsfield@
and weather app we also use in flightglobal.com
house. Other solutions in the
21-27 January 2020 | Flight International | 43
Welcome to the all new
, the digital
home of Flight International
and Airline Business.
FlightGlobal.com has a fresh new look and feel, plus
improved usability which connects you seamlessly with the
content you are looking for.

Register today for free access to our award-winning opinion,

analysis, special reports and the FlightGlobal rankings. And
don’t forget to check out exclusive interviews with the sector’s
thought leaders.

Keep track of what’s happening in the sector by selecting

from our portfolio of enhanced newsletters. This includes
VJGRQRWNCT(NKIJV+PVGTPCVKQPCN$TKGƂPICPFVJGPGYYGGMN[
&GHGPEG$TKGƂPI

Authoritative, pioneering and trusted, FlightGlobal is

the preferred destination for aviation professionals and
enthusiasts around the world. Connect with the all-new
FlightGlobal.com today.

Register for free at FlightGlobal.com