Flight Safety Information - May 14, 2024 No. 096 In This Issue : Incident: Easyjet A320 at Manchester on May 12th 2024, lightning strike : Incident: JAL B788 at Fukuoka on May 10th 2024, runway incursion forced rejected takeoff : Incident: Canada A333 near Dublin on May 9th 2024, hydraulic failure : Incident: KLM B739 at Munich on May 9th 2024, flaps problem on landing : Fireball explodes on Delta jet as passengers evacuate through emergency slides : Plans for planes to be flown with one pilot in cockpit labelled ‘gamble with safety’ : Aviation Safety Solutions Helps Air Transport Service Gain FAA Part 5 SMS Approval : FAA bill would force the agency to craft 'real world' rules for airplane evacuations : Delta and Spirit airplanes collide at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport : 'I want answers from American Airlines,' says mother suing carrier after her 14-year-old son died on a flight : Independence of NTSB aviation investigations questioned over reliance on outside help : The largest private jet in the world is sat in an aircraft graveyard in Arizona : Is Comac's C939 Widebody Jet Poised To Take On Boeing And Airbus? : CALENDAR OF EVENTS Incident: Easyjet A320 at Manchester on May 12th 2024, lightning strike An Easyjet Airbus A320-200, registration G-EZPD performing flight U2-2179 from Manchester,EN (UK) to Amsterdam (Netherlands), was in the initial climb out of Manchester's runway 23R when the aircraft sustained a lightning strike. In the absence of abnormal indications the crew continued the flight to Amsterdam where the aircraft landed safely on runway 18R about 50 minutes after departure. The aircraft is still on the ground in Amsterdam about 24 hours after landing. A passenger reported the aircraft sustained a lightning strike in the initial climb out of Manchester. About 5 minutes later the captain announced that all indications were normal and they would continue to Amsterdam. The return flight to Manchester was cancelled. https://avherald.com/h?article=51895cd0&opt=0 Incident: JAL B788 at Fukuoka on May 10th 2024, runway incursion forced rejected takeoff A JAL Japan Airlines Boeing 787-8, registration JA847J performing flight JL-312 from Fukuoka to Tokyo Haneda (Japan) with 176 passengers and 10 crew, was taxiing for departure from runway 34 and needed to backtrack the runway entering the runway via taxiway E6 (about 1130 meters/3700 feet down runway 16) and vacated the runway via taxiway E7 (1400 meters/4600 feet down the runway). The aircraft had been instructed to hold short of the runway at E6, but crossed the hold short line and stopped short of the runway edge upon controller instruction. A J-Air Embraer ERJ-170 on behalf of JAL Japan Airlines, registration JA214J performing flight JL-3595 from Fukuoka to Matsuyama (Japan) with 43 passengers and 4 crew, was accelerating for takeoff from runway 16 at that time. When the 787 crossed the hold short line the aircraft rejected takeoff at low speed (about 70 KIAS) and stopped well short of taxiway E6. The Embraer returned to the apron, the flight was cancelled. The 787 continued taxi and departed completing their flight on schedule. Japan's Ministry of Transport opened an investigation into the occurrence. https://avherald.com/h?article=518948f7&opt=0 Incident: Canada A333 near Dublin on May 9th 2024, hydraulic failure An Air Canada Airbus A330-300, registration C-GKUH performing flight AC-819 from Venice (Italy) to Montreal,QC (Canada), was enroute at FL380 about 200nm southsouthwest of Dublin (Ireland) when the crew decided to divert to Dublin due to a hydraulic failure. The aircraft landed safely on Dublin's runway 10L and became disabled on the runway due to the loss of nose wheel steering. The aircraft was towed off the runway about 20 minutes after landing. The onward flight was cancelled. The occurrence aircraft remained on the ground for about 23 hours, then positioned to Montreal and resumed service. https://avherald.com/h?article=51887c38&opt=0 Incident: KLM B739 at Munich on May 9th 2024, flaps problem on landing A KLM Boeing 737-900, registration PH-BXT performing flight KL-1859 from Amsterdam (Netherlands) to Munich (Germany), was on final approach to Munich's runway 08L when the crew initiated a go around reporting a problem with the flaps. The aircraft positioned for another approach to runway 08L and landed on runway 08L at a slightly higher than normal speed about 20 minutes after the go around. A passenger reported the captain announced the flaps had failed to fully extend, they were doing an overspeed landing at 165 KIAS. After landing emergency services inspected the aircraft before the aircraft taxied to the apron. The aircraft is still on the ground in Munich about 37 hours after landing. The return flight KL-1848 the next morning was cancelled. https://avherald.com/h?article=5187c81a&opt=0 Fireball explodes on Delta jet as passengers evacute through emergency slides The sparking occurred after the aircraft was plugged into the electrical network of the terminal which led to the explosion of the fireball The moment when a Delta flight caught fire and led to total evacuation at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport recently was caught in a shocking new video. In the video, which was released by KOMO News, a fireball is seen exploding after which black smoke rises from the Airbus jet's nose, just below the cockpit after it landed on April 6. At around 9:35 pm local time, Delta Flight 604 arrived at the Washington airport from Cancun, Mexico safely. However, after plugging the aircraft into the electrical network of the terminal, the accident occurred. Electric sparks were generated after the plug-in shorted out and a fireball directly below the Airbus A321 aircraft's cockpit, said a spokesperson for SEA Perry Cooper. He stated that the pilots got the smell of the smoke and asked the crew to open the emergency exit slides. Passengers panic amid emergency evacuation Speaking to KOMO News, one passenger said that the fliers freaked out after they learned about being evacuated. A Seattle software engineer, who was accompanied by his wife, Ashwin Menon said, “I think people responded to that with panic, there was a little bit of jostling in the aisles to get to the exit. But overall it was a pretty smooth evacuation process.” In the surveillance footage, the passengers were seen walking out onto the plane's wing before hopping inside the inflatable chutes from where they slid safely onto the tarmac. “It was like just jump out, jump onto the slides, and within a couple of minutes everyone was out. I was calmer than I thought I would be. I’m quite afraid of flying," Menon said. The crew evacuated nearly two-thirds of the 189 passengers via the slides, while the remaining already had exited through the passenger loading bridge, said Cooper. Reacting to the incident, Delta Airlines said, “Out of an abundance of caution, slides were deployed and passengers still on board deplaned via the rear of the aircraft. Passengers were fully evacuated, and those deplaned to the ramp returned to the terminal via the ramp stairs." “The aircraft has been removed from service for inspection and maintenance," the statement added. According to the KOMO News, the electrical cord which had shorted has been repaired and started operating normally. “Kudos to the airline crew who reacted as trained with an abundance of caution,” said Cooper, in a statement to The New York Post. “Rather have a little inconvenience than something that could have turned worse," he added. An investigation into the incident is being carried out. https://www.wionews.com/world/watch-fireball-explodes-on-delta-jet-as-passengers-evacute-through-emergency-slides-721366 Plans for planes to be flown with one pilot in cockpit labelled ‘gamble with safety’ Exclusive: ‘I wouldn’t feel comfortable as a passenger on a long-range aircraft where only one pilot is left alone for hours on end’ says one captain The UK government has no plans for reducing the number of pilots on aircraft European pilots have described plans for the flight deck of passenger planes to be occupied by only one pilot for long stretches as “a gamble with safety”. The EU Aviation Safety Agency (Easa) is evaluating the safety of “extended Minimum Crew Operations” (eMCO). The idea is that one pilot would leave the flight deck to rest for several hours during the cruise portion of the flight while the other remains at the controls. Airbus, which is reseaching eMCO, says harnessing new technological tools would enable the flight crew “to better organise their presence in the cockpit during the cruise phase”. The Toulouse-based aircraft manufacturer says: “Pilots can thus achieve a better balance between working and resting time on long-range flights.” Easa has stressed it will not tolerate any reduction in safety compared with the current two-pilot convention. But the Brussels-based European Cockpit Association has launched a website, OneMeansNone.eu, to oppose any such move. The association, representing pilots’ unions across Europe, calls the plan “an inherently dangerous concept, driven solely by the commercial interests of manufacturers and airlines”. Passengers are told: “Airlines and airplane manufacturers want to reduce the number of pilots flying a plane from two to one. “However, relying on one pilot is not enough as flying with just one pilot is like flying on a pilotless flight. “Automation on a plane requires humans to programme and manage it effectively. But, it often fails. This is why planes are equipped with multiple backups – like two engines, two generators, two hydraulic systems, two navigation receivers. “This redundancy is key to maintaining today’s impressive safety record. If one system fails, another kicks in. The same applies for pilots: if one gets sick or needs to use the bathroom, another one must swiftly take over.” Captain Pablo Alvarez of Cargolux Airlines, based in Luxembourg, said: “We’ve witnessed a significant reduction in crew size over the years, from five individuals including a navigator, radio operator and flight engineer, down to just the captain and first officer. “However, this is a crucial line we shouldn’t cross. Personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable flying as a passenger on a long-range aircraft where only one pilot is left alone for hours on end.” Extended Minimum Crew Operations are considered most likely for longer-haul flight such as London to Los Angeles, with a “block time” from gate to gate of over 11 hours. Some airlines deploy a third pilot for such flights, so that the other two can get some rest during the flight; eCMO would render this unnecessary. The concept envisages both pilots being fully involved in the take-off and climb phase of the flight. But after a briefing, one pilot would retire to rest while the other remains at the controls. Towards the end of the flight, both pilots would be on the flight deck throughout the descent and landing. Easa talks of “anticipated benefits in term of pilot fatigue management”. The European safety agency says aircraft manufacturers Airbus and Dassault applied to it between 2019 and 2022 for airworthiness approval of eMCO capability on large aeroplanes. There is no expectation that any such permission will be granted for several years, with 2028 mooted as a possible start date for eMCO. Easa insists: “The eMCO concept should have an equivalent level of safety as today’s concept with two pilots operating the aircraft. “Easa will only approve such operations once the agency is convinced that they are at least as safe as today’s two-pilot operations.” Investigations are also under way into the concept of Single Pilot Operation (SiPO), in which only one pilot is deployed throughout a flight. Such a scenario is highly unlikely for passenger aircraft unless and until eMCO is demonstrated to be safe. The Department for Transport says it has no plans for contemplating a reduction in the number of pilots on board British-registered aircraft. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/plane-one-pilot-flight-deck-eu-rules-b2544283.html Aviation Safety Solutions Helps Air Transport Service Gain FAA Part 5 SMS Approval GOODYEAR, Ariz., May 14, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Aviation Safety Solutions, a leading provider in aviation safety management systems, is proud to announce that Air Transport Service has successfully obtained FAA Part 5 SMS approval under the FAA SMS Voluntary Program. This achievement marks a significant milestone for Air Transport Service, showcasing their commitment to maintaining the highest standards of safety and compliance. Aircraft Transport Service has successfully obtained FAA Part 5 SMS approval under the FAA SMS Voluntary Program. Aviation Safety Solutions played a crucial role in this accomplishment by offering expert guidance through their comprehensive product offerings, including the FAA SMS Workshop, tailored FAA/ICAO SMS Manuals, and a dedicated Safety Assistance Program for implementation. These services are designed to equip aviation operators with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate the complexities of SMS compliance effectively. Amanda Ferraro, CEO of Aviation Safety Solutions remarked, "We are thrilled to see Air Transport Service achieve FAA Part 5 SMS approval. This success is a testament to the effectiveness of our tailored workshops and safety programs. Our goal at Aviation Safety Solutions is to empower our clients not only to meet but exceed FAA safety standards, ensuring a safer future for the aviation industry." John Scotto, President of Air Transport Service, emphasized the significance of safety in their operations, stating, "Safety is a paramount part of every decision we make, and I am extremely proud of what our team has accomplished. The expertise and support from Aviation Safety Solutions were invaluable in our journey to obtaining FAA Part 5 SMS approval. Their detailed approach and practical training have significantly enhanced our safety management capabilities, setting a new standard within our operations." This partnership between Aviation Safety Solutions and Air Transport Service highlights the importance of advanced safety training and resources in achieving rigorous regulatory approvals. Aviation Safety Solutions continues to lead the way in safety management, offering a range of services tailored to the needs of the aviation community. For more information about Aviation Safety Solutions and their services, please visit www.avsafetysolutions.com. About Aviation Safety Solutions: Aviation Safety Solutions, founded in 2013 and led by Amanda Ferraro as CEO, is a globally recognized leader in the application of aviation best practices and standards. Our mission is to provide the aviation industry with unparalleled safety expertise through customized consulting, auditing, training, and development services. With a steadfast commitment to safety training and emergency preparedness, Aviation Safety Solutions prioritizes excellence in safety across the aviation sector. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aviation-safety-solutions-helps-air-transport-service-gain-faa-part-5-sms-approval-302144198.html FAA bill would force the agency to craft 'real world' rules for airplane evacuations • A Japan Airlines jet burst into flames after colliding with a Japanese coast guard plane at Tokyo's Haneda Airport in January. All 379 people on board the Japan Airlines flight were safely evacuated, but the incident raised questions about evacuation standards. WASHINGTON — If an airplane has to be evacuated, the Federal Aviation Administration says all passengers must be capable of getting out within 90 seconds. But critics say the agency's testing standards have not kept pace with the shrinking size of airplane seats — which means more people jammed into the cabin — or the changing composition of the flying public. "This is ridiculous. This is not how we travel today," said U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) in an interview. Duckworth argues the FAA's current tests fail to take real world conditions into consideration. "They did not mimic the seat density of a modern aircraft. They had no carry-on baggage. They had nobody over the age of 60 and nobody under the age of 18," said Duckworth, a former Army helicopter pilot who lost both her legs in the Iraq war. "They didn't have anybody with a disability. Of course they were able to evacuate the aircraft in 90 seconds," she said. A year and counting For more than a year, Duckworth has been pushing a bill known as the Emergency Vacating of Aircraft Cabin (EVAC) Act that would require the FAA to reconsider its airplane evacuation standards. Now that legislation is poised to become law as part of a broader FAA reauthorization that passed the Senate last week. The House is expected to take up the bill as soon as Tuesday. The FAA says it is reviewing the bill. In the real world, evacuations are very rare — but they do happen. In January, a Japan Airlines jet burst into flames after colliding with a Japanese Coast Guard plane on a runway at Haneda Airport in Tokyo. The crash killed five people in the Coast Guard aircraft. It's been years since the F.A.A. has changed passenger evacuation standards for commercial airlines. That may change soon. But remarkably, all 379 people on board the Japan Airlines Airbus A350 evacuated safely before the plane was engulfed in flames. The flight attendants were widely praised for their calm and professional response. Safety experts say the passengers did a good job, too. "They didn't panic. They helped each other," said Stephen Creamer, a safety consultant and a former senior director at the International Civil Aviation Organization. "Most important, they left things behind, and they went and got off the airplane," Creamer told NPR. ASIA What is known about the fiery runway collision at a Tokyo airport In an emergency, passengers are told to always leave their carry-on bags behind because they can damage the inflatable slides or slow down the evacuation — though in practice, that hasn't always been the case. The Japan Airlines evacuation wasn't perfect, either. After the impact, it took about 6 minutes for the emergency exits on the plane to open. In a video posted on social media, one young passenger can be heard politely urging the flight attendants to evacuate the plane quickly as the cabin of the jumbo jet fills with smoke. It took a full 18 minutes from the moment of impact before the captain finally left the plane — prompting a fresh round of questions about whether the FAA's 90-second evacuation standard is still realistic. Evacuation standards date to the 1960s The agency's current evacuation standards date back to the 1960s. In order for an airplane to be certified, the manufacturer has to show that a full passenger load can exit the plane within 90 seconds with half of the exits blocked. In 2018, Congress ordered the FAA to look at whether changes to seat size, aisle width and passenger demographics are hindering evacuation of passengers. Four years later, the FAA submitted a report to Congress that largely dismissed those concerns. "Currently flying seat pitches using seats of similar size or smaller than those used in this project can accommodate and not impede egress for 99% of the American population," according to the FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute. But that report revealed that the agency's latest tests look very different from today's aircraft cabins. They involve only 60 occupants — fewer than the more than 100 who typically fill jets today — none of whom are children and seniors, or travelers who require service animals or wheelchairs, in part because of ethical considerations. When the FAA asked for public input on the minimum seat dimensions that are necessary for passenger safety, it received more than 26,000 comments. An FAA spokesman says the agency is still reviewing them. Some stakeholders are tired of waiting for tougher testing standards. "We are concerned that current regulations for certification of the aircraft cabin don't reflect our real world conditions," said Sara Nelson, the president of the Association of Flight Attendants union, which represents 50,000 flight attendants at 19 airlines. "We don't need the first test on this to be an active emergency," Nelson said in a statement. "Let's get real now!" The EVAC Act would require the FAA to conduct a comprehensive study on aircraft evacuation, and to assemble a group of experts and stakeholders to evaluate gaps in current standards and advise the agency on possible changes. "I want them to simulate an actual passenger load, of what an average airliner flies with," Duckworth said. "Now tell me how long it takes to evacuate the aircraft." "I think our emergency responders deserve to know," she said, "because they're the ones who are going to have to respond if there's an aircraft emergency, and we're on the ground and we need to get people out." https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1249017188/faa-real-world-plane-evacuation-rules Delta and Spirit airplanes collide at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport Both airlines said there were no injuries reported from the incident. A Spirit Airlines plane was hit by the wing of a Delta Airlines plane Sunday night at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. The incident happened around 8 p.m. as Spirit Airlines Flight 655 was parked at a gate and in the process of boarding passengers. That's when the wingtip of Delta flight DL2577 made contact with the Spirit aircraft, a spokesperson with Spirit Airlines said. There were no injuries reported on either aircraft, both airlines said. Delta passengers on the flight endured a four-hour delay while the airline worked to reaccommodate them with another aircraft, Delta said. The Spirit aircraft was removed from service to be examined, and the airline said it reaccommodated passengers who were scheduled for that flight. Airplane flying with sunset in the background. With all the recent headlines about plane incidents, is flying safe? Delta released the following statement to Scripps News Cleveland regarding the collision: Delta teams are working to reaccommodate customers to their final destination to Atlanta tonight after the wingtip from Delta flight DL2577 made contact with a parked aircraft at CLE. We apologize for any inconvenience caused. Spirit also released a statement: Spirit Airlines flight 655 (CLE-LAX) was parked at the gate in Cleveland (CLE) and in the process of boarding when the wing tip of another airline’s aircraft made contact with our aircraft. Our Guests deplaned normally through the jet bridge, and no injuries to Spirit Guests or Team Members were reported. Safety is our top priority, and the aircraft was removed from service to be thoroughly inspected by our maintenance team. We are reaccommodating our Guests with alternate travel arrangements as quickly as possible. https://www.scrippsnews.com/us-news/delta-and-spirit-airplanes-collide-at-cleveland-hopkins-international-airport 'I want answers from American Airlines,' says mother suing carrier after her 14-year-old son died on a flight • A mother is suing American Airlines after her 14-year-old son died on board a flight. • The lawsuit claims the flight crew was slow to respond and could not operate the defibrillator. • "It made me feel hopeless. I want answers from American Airlines," she said. A mother is suing American Airlines and calling for answers after her 14-year-old son died on board a flight. Kevin Greenidge and his family were returning to New York from a vacation in Honduras back in 2022 when he lost consciousness after takeoff, the lawsuit says. The suit claims that the flight crew was slow to respond after Greenidge's family called for help, and that they were either unable to operate the defibrillator or it was faulty. The flight was diverted to Cancún, and Greenidge was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead. The suit was originally filed in New York in 2023, but was refiled in Texas on Monday after American Airlines challenged to transfer the case to the state where it's headquartered. In a video shared by her legal team, Greenidge's mother, Melissa Arzu, said: "After Kevin died, I never heard from American Airlines again." "It made me feel hopeless," she added. "I want answers from American Airlines." Citing airline records, the suit says that the flight crew weren't trained to use the type of defibrillator that was on board the plane. It adds that the machine didn't deliver a shock, but kept advising that CPR should be continued. Hannah Crowe, Arzu's attorney, said: "After Kevin died, the equipment went missing." The suit asks for around $150,000 in compensation. "Our thoughts are with Mr. Greenidge's loved ones," American Airlines said when contacted by Business Insider. The airline declined to comment further, citing pending litigation. https://www.businessinsider.com/american-airlines-facing-lawsuit-14-year-old-died-on-board-2024-5 Independence of NTSB aviation investigations questioned over reliance on outside help Analysis of agency records shows NTSB investigators don’t respond in person to all fatal accidents. By Emily Featherston and Joce Sterman (InvestigateTV) — Just 19 minutes after Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 departed, a door plug behind the aircraft’s left wing suddenly blew out, causing rapid decompression in the cabin. By the time the plane made an emergency landing and limped back to a gate — the event leaving the 171 passengers and six crewmembers shaken but alive — the wheels of the investigation into what went wrong were likely already in motion. By law, the National Transportation Safety Board is to be notified immediately of any event involving civil aircraft in the United States, as the agency is tasked with investigating all such incidents and accidents to determine what happened and if there are ways to prevent it from happening again. NTSB investigators were on the ground in Portland, Oregon and examining the Boeing 737 Max-9 in less than 22 hours. But such a presence is not seen in the case of every aviation event — NTSB investigators are often absent from the scenes of crashes involving small aircraft, even when there is a loss of life. InvestigateTV analysis of NTSB records found the agency only travels to a small fraction of all investigations each year, and over the last several years has left the on-scene work in the hands of the Federal Aviation Administration or others for roughly 1 in 5 fatal crashes. During periods of difficulty, such as a federal government shutdown or the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency’s in-person presence has been even more limited. Board documents indicate NTSB officials weigh a variety of factors when deciding where to go and when — some of them seemingly more focused on public perception than the severity of a crash: Will there be media coverage? Was a celebrity on board? But NTSB officials assert priority is given to those events that would likely result in industry-wide safety recommendations. They also have to wrestle with responding to more than 1,200 aviation events each year with an investigative staff of less than 100 and a budget that has remained relatively flat since the late 1990s. Still, critics say not responding in person, especially to fatal crashes, threatens the independence of the NTSB. It was specifically designed by Congress to operate outside of the U.S. Department of Transportation to catch any safety issues or gaps in policy that could put the public at risk. “There needs to be a very strong and strict firewall between the agency and the investigator, especially now when you have more cases of doors flying off and problems with planes,” said David Williams, president of Taxpayers Protection Alliance, a nonprofit that looks at government spending, transparency and efficiency. The Alaska Airlines event in particular has reignited criticisms of the FAA’s own practice of outsourcing certain safety inspections to manufacturers themselves, but Williams and others say regardless of how things are going for that entity, the NTSB’s efforts should stand on their own. “Consumers expect from the NTSB that they are independent, that they are separate from the FAA,” Williams said, “and it’s critical for consumers, for taxpayers and just for the flying safety of the public.” It’s especially critical for the loved ones of those who are killed when something goes wrong between takeoff and landing. ‘I was horrified that they weren’t coming’ One crash that lacked an on-scene NTSB presence occurred on October 2, 2020, when the small plane piloted by prominent personal injury attorney Steve Barnes plunged to the earth about 17 miles short of its destination at the Buffalo, New York airport. Barnes’ partner of 12 years, Ellen Sturm, was in the middle of preparing for a family party when she learned the person who meant the world to her was gone. “He was everything to me,” she said. “I worked side by side with him. We climbed mountains together. We had family functions together. We were best friends in every sense.” The plane crash also took the life of Barnes’s niece, Elizabeth Barnes, whom he was retrieving from New Hampshire so she could attend the small, pandemic-conscious celebration of Steve’s mother’s 90th birthday. When he left for the round trip that was scheduled to take only a few hours, Sturm said he was excited about the chance to spend time with the family. “He walked out, he said, ‘I love you. I’ll be home before noon with Lizzie,’” she said. Normally, Sturm said Barnes would text her after landing and give her updates, but when she hadn’t heard from him by about 12:30 p.m., she said she began messaging him to ask where he was. As she was preparing the meal for the ill-fated party, Sturm said she received a frantic phone call from her brother, a journalist. “When I picked up my cell phone, my brother was like, ‘Ellen — you’re okay,’ and I just knew from his voice and I said, ‘What’s going on?’ and he just said, ‘Don’t turn the news on,’” she recalled. Instead of a joyful celebration, the family was left planning two funerals. “I don’t know if anybody can really appreciate how cruel fate can be that you would live until your 90th birthday and lose your son and your granddaughter on that day,” Sturm said. As Sturm mourned, authorities combed through the accident scene. But one entity was noticeably absent — the NTSB. The final report reviewed by InvestigateTV does not explain why the crash did not merit an on-scene response, but the agency told news outlets at the time it was due to limitations caused by the pandemic. “I was horrified that they weren’t coming and doing a full investigation,” Sturm said. Even calls by members of Congress for the NTSB to send an investigator on-site were left unheeded. “It just it felt like you’re completely diminished at the worst time of your life,” Sturm said. “There’s these two incredible people and they’re just wiped off the planet, and isn’t this the organization that’s supposed to be in charge of, you know, airplane safety, aviation safety?” ‘Independence’ and a key decision: To go, or not to go? By the numbers, air travel has consistently retained its status over time as the “safest” form of getting from one place to another. Still, aviators dating back to the Wright brothers note there is always a risk that something will go wrong between takeoff and landing, the elder brother Wilbur remarking in 1901: “If you are looking for perfect safety, you will do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds.” There are an average of three aviation incidents or accidents in the U.S. per day, the vast majority involving small, non-commercial aircraft, and fatal crashes occur roughly once every two days. For every single one of those events, the NTSB is required by law to investigate in order to determine the probable cause and whether any safety recommendations need to be made to the industry or regulators. Those investigations are meant to be done independently — meaning they are supposed to be done outside of the control of any other federal department. The NTSB was first created in 1967 as part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, but in 1974 was pulled out and re-established by Congress as a separate, independent entity charged with promoting safety in transportation by conducting investigations and making safety recommendations. The law says that because the NTSB may need to make critical or adverse conclusions about DOT operations or policies and suggest changes, it had to be independent. “No federal agency can properly perform such functions unless it is totally separate and independent from any other,” the statute reads. The law states that the NTSB is “responsible for the investigation, determination of facts, conditions, and circumstances and the cause or probable cause of all accidents involving civil aircraft, and certain public aircraft.” And while other federal, state or local agencies may be granted access to crash sites and evidence, the NTSB retains control and primary jurisdiction. Events involving other modes of transportation — automobiles, railroads, pipelines and marine vessels — also fall under the agency’s purview, but the statute does not mandate “all” accidents be investigated in the same way that it does for aviation. “Our job is to go out and to determine the facts, conditions and circumstances of each accident,” Joe Sedor, the chief technical advisor for the NTSB’s Office of Aviation Safety, said in an interview with InvestigateTV. InvestigateTV analysis of NTSB investigation data from 2015-2023 found the agency initially designated an average of just 14.1% of all aviation investigations each year merited having NTSB staff at the scene. In a majority of aviation events each of those years — roughly 70% — no one was hurt or there were only minor injuries, but the U.S. saw, on average, 215 fatal crashes annually. Because the scope of the NTSB’s response could potentially expand or contract after a crash’s initial categorization is made, InvestigateTV and the Arnolt Center for Investigative Reporting reviewed the published investigation reports for all fatal events across 2015-2023 to determine whether an agency investigator traveled to the scene or not. According to the data, on average the NTSB did not travel to the scene of at least 21.8% of fatal events each year. That figure includes 2020, when the agency opted not to travel to 77.3% of fatal events, including the one outside of Buffalo that killed Steve Barnes and his niece, citing pandemic restrictions on travel — even though guidance for federal employees allowed for “mission critical” travel, including for safety investigations. InvestigateTV presented the NTSB with a list of multiple fatal events where it did not send an investigator to the scene, including several that occurred outside of the pandemic timeframe, but the agency did not provide answers about what circumstances influenced those specific decisions. According to an agency spokesperson, as well as an NTSB investigation manual found by InvestigateTV, the list of things the agency considers when deciding whether to send investigators to the scene includes: • The type of aircraft and the location of the wreckage, • The number of fatalities or the extent of any injuries, • The likelihood of public or media attention, • The notoriety of pilots, crew or passengers, • The existence of known safety issue or items of interest to board members, • Early and extensive information about a probable cause. “We look at each accident individually, because every accident is different,” Sedor said. “Even if it has similar circumstances there, it’s going to have its own unique aspects.” ‘It’s a disservice to the American public’ The NTSB as a whole has roughly 430 employees, and Sedor said the aviation office makes up about 120 of that total. With a yearly load of investigations that outnumbers staff 10-to-1, Sedor said it’s often necessary to utilize outside resources though what’s called the “party system,” where the on-scene work is handled by other entities. By law, the FAA is always granted status as a party, and aircraft manufacturers, state and local law enforcement and other subject matter experts also may provide assistance. But even in cases where those parties are at the scene and the NTSB is not, Sedor said the agency still retains official control of the process. “We do not delegate the investigation,” Sedor said. Parties must sign a document acknowledging their responsibility to cooperate with NTSB investigators and follow agency policy and that they are prohibited from withholding any information they obtain during the investigation from the NTSB. However, a 2000 study by the RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan policy research group, found while the party system works well enough in most cases, it has the potential to be compromised by the inherent tension between the NTSB and the FAA or the risk of civil litigation. “This inherent conflict of interest may jeopardize, or be perceived to jeopardize, the integrity of the NTSB investigation,” the study report states. Throughout his career spanning half a century, including almost a decade as an NTSB board member, John Goglia participated in countless aviation crash investigations — including the catastrophic TWA-800 explosion in 1996 that sent an airplane bound for Paris into the Atlantic Ocean. Now, he offers his expertise in other ways, including through a flight safety podcast he started with other aviation experts where they discuss crash investigations and their takeaways. Goglia said he believes the NTSB risks missing potentially critical details about what led to a crash when they don’t have an on-scene presence during an investigation. “We often say [on the podcast] that the NTSB hit the big red easy button for some of the probable causes just to just to move it along,” he said. Goglia said he takes issue with the inherent assertion that on-scene efforts by the FAA are equivalent to what would be done by an NTSB investigator. In order to participate on-scene in the NTSB’s shoes, FAA employees must at minimum be employed at the Aviation Safety Inspector level and have taken the “Basic Aircraft Accident Investigation” course at the NSTB’s Transportation Safety Institute in Oklahoma City, according to an agreement between the two entities,. FAA employees are then required to take subsequent courses “as soon as practicable.” By contrast, the minimum job requirements listed in a job posting for an NTSB Investigator are much higher, including having specialized experience leading or participating in multiple complex accident investigations. “It’s a disservice to the American public because we don’t get all the benefits for the money that we’re spending for these investigations to bring the improvements,” he said. Even though the FAA may share a similar goal of aviation safety with the NTSB, Williams with Taxpayers Protection Alliance said he too views the significant use of FAA personnel during the early stages of a crash investigation as a weakening of the NTSB independence taxpayers are supposedly paying for. “An independent watchdog like the NTSB, has to be the lead investigator in this,” Williams said. “That’s why they need people on the scene.” Like Goglia, Williams also said he had concerns about the training level of FAA investigators, and the two aren’t alone — the Government Accountability Office found gaps in the training practices in the FAA’s Office of Aviation Safety. The 2020 report notes that while the agency provides training, it does not have processes in place to identify if its employees possess the critical competencies needed to carry out their jobs, nor does it regularly evaluate if its training curriculum is sufficient — something that Williams says only further emphasizes the need for NTSB investigators to be on-scene. “There is no assurance that when FAA personnel go to a crash investigation, that they’re the right personnel to do this,” he said. “The NTSB is trained specifically for these situations and to investigate these situations.” ‘Undetermined reasons’ Despite taking the better part of two years, the investigation into the crash that killed Steve Barnes and his niece never found a definitive reason the single-engine aircraft seemingly fell from the sky. “I still don’t feel like I know, and I know that the rest of the family feels like they don’t know,” Ellen Sturm, Barnes’s partner, said. According to the final NTSB report, investigators found no evidence of any structural or mechanical failures that would have affected the aircrafts normal operations, and meteorological data reflect that the crash area was experiencing mostly clear skies with no concern for ice or turbulence. The only apparent anomaly was a 25-minute lapse in contact between the aircraft and Air Traffic Control — but tower controllers were able to communicate with Barnes as he prepared to land. The controller asked, “Is everything okay?” to which Barnes replied, “Yes sir, everything is fine.” Based on a performance study done using data the FAA and the plane’s manufacturer, NTSB investigators determined that shortly after that response, the aircraft entered into a severe spiral dive toward the earth where it made impact, creating a 15-foot-deep crater. The official probable cause determined by the NTSB for the October 2, 2020 crash is documented as: “The pilot’s failure to maintain control of the airplane for undetermined reasons during the descent to the destination airport.” Ellen Sturm with her late partner, Steve Barnes. Sturm said they loved adventure and frequently flew together in the plane that was housed near the home the couple shared in Buffalo, New York. Sturm said she remains beyond unsatisfied with the ultimate findings — especially because the NTSB did not have an investigator on scene. “[Concluding] ‘He didn’t control the plane coming down for unknown reasons,’ that’s not helpful. Not really,” she said. “There could have been something mechanically wrong with the plane. I mean, they determined there wasn’t, but they didn’t bother to come and look at the evidence.” NTSB staff did take a look at the recovered pieces of wreckage about six weeks after the crash, but Sturm said investigators should have been the ones to recover it in the first place. “I think that they should have been there combing through that. They knew what to look for,” she said. She said she believes it’s possible something could have been missed or mishandled. “The data that was collected on scene and then the data afterwards — I believe that we determined the probable cause just as if we had been on scene, so we did not lose any information in that aspect,” Sedor, with the NTSB, said. The day following the crash, when it became clear the NTSB was not planning to send an investigator to the scene, two New York Congressional representatives sent a letter to then-chair Robert Sumwalt, copying FAA administrator Steve Dickson. Rep. Chris Jacobs (R) and Rep. Brian Higgins (D) implored the NTSB to travel to the site of the crash, saying: “Neglecting to do so leaves crucial information about what caused this tragic crash unknown.” The NTSB told news outlets at the time “the decision to not travel to the scene included assessment of COVID-19 risks,” but the Associated Press confirmed the agency received the letter from the lawmakers. NTSB records show investigators did launch to a fatal crash in Alabama five days after the crash that killed Barnes and his niece, and there were five other accidents that month labeled as “field” level investigations but that didn’t specifically indicate in the report whether the agency traveled to the scene. “We did send people out when we needed to, but that’s again, [the pandemic] was just one more thing we had to think about,” Sedor said. A lean agency The NTSB hired 57 new employees in fiscal year 2023, bringing it to a total of about 430, and current board chair Jennifer Homendy has said the agency is hoping to hire roughly 15 additional new employees through 2027. “It is critical for the agency to have additional resources to respond to events without impacting timeliness, quality, and our independence,” Homendy said in April 2022, when she first presented the agency’s budget requests to lawmakers. On April 29, lawmakers announced a bipartisan agreement on language reauthorizing both the FAA and the NTSB that would give the independent agency $738 million over five years. That bill was approved by the Senate on May 9, and is awaiting action in the House. But Homendy has also told lawmakers that to completely right-size the agency would take significantly more employees. InvestigateTV contacted several lawmakers involved in aviation oversight —including House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) and ranking member Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA), as well as aviation subcommittee chair Rep. Garrett Graves (R-LA) and committee member Del. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-DC) — to ask about the NTSB’s level of on-scene response to aviation crashes and its resource needs, but none were available for interviews. Multiple requests for comment were sent to Rep. Brian Higgins, one of the lawmakers who urged the NTSB to respond to the Barnes crash, before he left office in February, but InvestigateTV did not receive a response. Meanwhile, there have also been calls for the NTSB to better use the resources it does have. In August 2023, a GAO report found while the NTSB has been working in recent years to improve its processes, there is more that needs to be done. “The more efficiently they use those resources, the better they can deliver on those missions,” said Heather Krause, managing director of GAO’s physical infrastructure team and lead author of the report. “Identifying inefficiencies is key. It could save lives. It could make the difference between finding safety flaws and not finding them.” Yang Chao, Runtian Huang, Carson Johnson, Brookelyn Lambright, Yanai Levy, Martin Schauss, Tyler Spence and Jacob Spudich from the Arnolt Center for Investigative Reporting provided research assistance for this report. Research Methodology: InvestigateTV and the Arnolt Center for Investigative Reporting downloaded aviation event data from the NTSB’s CAROL database for all aviation events in the United States from Jan. 1, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2023. NTSB training presentations and the documentation for the agency’s accident information database notes the identification number assigned to each investigation details the level of initial agency response using a two-letter identifier: FA: “Field” investigations, where at least one NTSB investigator travels to the scene to oversee examination of the crash site MA: “Major” field investigations where one or multiple NTSB investigators travel to the scene and are accompanied by one or more members of the board LA: “Limited” investigations where the NTSB coordinates on-scene examination remotely and evidence collection is handled by another party By isolating those identifiers, InvestigateTV was able to determine the initial level of agency response for each event. Looking at events where there was at least one fatality to determine whether or not an NTSB investigator traveled to the scene of an event, InvestigateTV and Arnolt Center researchers reviewed the PDF reports published in the CAROL database. The “Administrative Information” section generally includes notation about the level of on-scene response. Reports were marked “Yes” if the document explicitly noted the NTSB traveled to the scene, “No” if the report explicitly noted the NTSB did not travel to the scene, or “Unclear” if there was no note about on-scene presence or the note was not specific. Calculations regarding the NTSB’s absence from a scene include only those events where the “No” was explicitly noted. https://www.dakotanewsnow.com/2024/05/13/independence-ntsb-aviation-investigations-questioned-over-reliance-outside-help/ The largest private jet in the world is sat in an aircraft graveyard in Arizona • The Boeing 747-8I is the largest passenger plane ever built by Boeing • It has enough room for over 460 passengers • It can fly at Mach 0.88, with a range of 15,000 km This is the Boeing 747-8I, the passenger version of the 747-8, which is actually the largest aircraft ever made by Boeing. Over 150 aircraft were built, in total, and a good few of them were sold privately and customized to become private jets. And one of these jets is apparently rotting away in the Arizona desert. When we think of private planes, we generally think of the type of the smaller jets that Cristiano Ronaldo or Taylor Swift might use. But the fact of the matter is, in theory, virtually any aircraft in the world can be turned into a private jet. Both Boeing and Airbus have customization programs that allow you to do that directly through them. However, on most occasions, buyers rely on third-party companies, which is what happened with the gigantic aircraft that Saudi Arabia used to ‘chauffeur’ soccer players around. The same thing applies to the stunning plane customized by jet interior specialist, Cabinet Alberto Pinto. As for this Boeing 747-8I (the I actually stands for Intercontinental, by the way), this is the world’s largest private jet. The plane had originally been built for the Saudi Arabian Government, but it appears the Saudi Crown Prince never actually took delivery of it and, after spending around three years in Germany, it was sent back to Boeing. In 2012, the aerospace company parked the plane in a graveyard in Arizona and left it there. At the time of writing – per the Federal Aviation Administration – the plane is still owned by Boeing. The 747-8I has enough room for up to 467 passengers in a three-class configuration and a range of over 9,000 miles – or 15,000. Just imagine what it must be like to turn a 467-person plane into the world’s largest private jet for a dozen people. https://supercarblondie.com/worlds-largest-private-jet-aircraft-graveyard/ Is Comac's C939 Widebody Jet Poised To Take On Boeing And Airbus? The aircraft is set to compete with the Airbus A350 and Boeing 777 in the long-haul market, along with its C919 narrowbody jet and the upcoming C929. SUMMARY • COMAC is working on the C939, which is set to seat up to 400 passengers, positioning it against Airbus A350 and Boeing 777. • The C939 is part of COMAC's lineup, including the ARJ21 and C919, aiming to compete in the aircraft market. • With plans for a twin-engine aircraft capable of intercontinental distances, COMAC aims to challenge the Airbus-Boeing duopoly in commercial aviation. The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) has begun work on its C939 widebody aircraft, which will be its largest aircraft to date. The aircraft will reportedly seat up to 400 passengers, firmly placing it as a competitor to the Airbus A350 and Boeing's 777 program. The biggest yet COMAC's upcoming C939 is the latest in a series of homegrown aircraft developed by the Chinese manufacturer. The current lineup includes the 'Advanced Regional Jet' ARJ21, which has carried over 10 million passengers since it entered service in 2016, and the narrowbody C919, which is now flying three routes for China Eastern Airways. The C939 will be positioned against Airbus and Boeing's largest aircraft as COMAC looks to increase its share in the long-haul aircraft market. According to the South China Morning Post, COMAC has "sketched out preliminary designs" for the new plane with the aim of developing a prototype. To compete with the Airbus A350 and Boeing's 777 lineup (including the 777X), the C939 would have to seat around 400 passengers and provide a range of 7,000 NM (13,000 kilometers). A second widebody plane, the C929, is also in development. Originally dubbed the CR929 when conceived as a joint project between Russia and China, the aircraft is set to compete with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A330neo in terms of range and capacity. What do we know so far? Details on the C939 remain scant. Simple Flying previously revealed that the aircraft will be a twin-engine aircraft with the capacity to seat around 390 passengers. The numbering follows the C919, which seats just over 190 passengers in its maximum capacity, and the C929, which will reportedly seat 290 passengers. Rumors of a larger C949 could not be reliably confirmed as of press time. COMAC has been clear about positioning itself as a competitor to the Airbus-Boeing duopoly in large commercial aircraft. The C919, its first mainline aircraft, is being actively promoted to airlines in the region as an alternative to aircraft like the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 family of aircraft with recent overseas appearances at events such as the Singapore Airshow. After a successful world debut in Singapore, the Chinese OEM has its eyes on Asia However, the manufacturer's current aircraft backlog far outweighs production capacity. The C919 has over 1,500 orders, with only five deliveries to date. COMAC predicted last year that it will produce 150 aircraft annually by 2028 and is reportedly working on an expanded production facility in Pudong, Shanghai. A COMAC C919 flying in the sky Photo: Aerospace Trek | Shutterstock In addition to the standard version, COMAC indicated that it will also produce shortened and extended versions of the C919 capable of accommodating 130 to 240 passengers. Two widebody planes at once COMAC will presumably continue the development of the C939 in conjunction with its existing C929 widebody program. The future of the C929 faced some uncertainty following Yury Slyusar, the CEO of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), confirming last year that the company would transition from being a joint venture partner in the CR929 program to a supplier. The program has already been delayed by nearly ten years. However, sources close to the South China Morning Post confirmed the program was still in "full swing" and on schedule: “Work [on the C929] is under way and progressing smoothly, utilising the same experience, support and system coordination we already have for the design and development of the C919 … The time needed can be similar.” While no release date has been confirmed, it appears that the manufacturer is looking to scale up its design processes using data from its two projects to bring the C393 to the market in line with its overall objectives. Based on current projections provided by COMAC, it will still take over a decade to fill existing C919 orders, so a significant investment in production capacity will still be required to generate aircraft at a scale competitive with the output of Boeing and Airbus. https://simpleflying.com/comac-c939-widebody-to-take-on-boeing-and-airbus/ CALENDAR OF EVENTS • Gulf Flight Safety Association (GFSA) Conference, May 15 & 16 2024, Jeddah • Blazetech - Aircraft Fire Hazards, Protection, and Investigation Course June 4 - 7, 2024 • (APTSC) Asia and Pacific Turboprop Safety Conference - June 26 - 27, 2024 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia • Airborne Public Safety Association, Inc. (APSCON 2024) - July 29 - August 3; Houston TX • Asia Pacific Airline Training Symposium - APATS 2024, 0-11 September, 2024, Singapore • Aircraft Cabin Air International Conference - 17 & 18 September - London • 2024 Ground Handling Safety Symposium (GHSS) - September 17-18, 2024 - Fort Worth, TX • 2024 ISASI - Lisbon, Portugal - September 30 to October 4, 2024 • International Congress of Aerospace Medicine ICAM 2024 in Lisbon, Portugal, 3 - 5 October 2024 • Aviation Health Conference back on Monday 7th and Tuesday 8th October 2024 • 2024 NBAA Business Aviation Convention & Exhibition - Oct. 22-24 (Vegas) • Sixth Edition of International Accident Investigation Forum, 21 to 23 May 2025, Singapore Curt Lewis