Flight Safety Information - February 17, 2025 No. 034 In This Issue : Incident: Vueling A320 near Barcelona on Feb 14th 2025, loss of cabin pressure : Incident: One B744 near Cardiff on Feb 13th 2025, engine failure : Incident: Volaris A319 at Mexico City on Feb 13th 2025, runway excursion on landing : Incident: Emirates A388 at Dubai on Feb 6th 2025, engine damage observed by cabin crew : 14 February 2025 - Eagle Air Transport Inc Cessna 208A Cargomaster accident 1 dead : Pushy passengers attacked by furious fellow traveler over rude inflight behavior: ‘Garbage people’ : NTSB Reveals Altitude Discrepancies, Lost Communication With Helicopter Before Crash : Japan’s Peach airline warned after pilot on S’pore-Kansai flight breached pre-shift alcohol ban : Delta Air Lines Sued After A350 Toilet Door Breaks Passenger Teeth : Jeju Air CEO undergoes police questioning over deadly airplane crash : Ryanair Ground Crew Fired After Failing Drug Test at Palma Airport, Raising Aviation Safety Concerns : Calendar of Events Incident: Vueling A320 near Barcelona on Feb 14th 2025, loss of cabin pressure A Vueling Airbus A320-200, registration EC-ODN performing flight VY-1884 from Barcelona,SP (Spain) to Berlin (Germany), was climbing through FL300 out of Barcelona when the crew initiated an emergency descent reporting the loss of cabin pressure. The aircraft levelled off at FL100 and returned to Barcelona for a safe landing on runway 24R about 75 minutes after departure. The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground in Barcelona about 7 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=52418266&opt=0 Incident: One B744 near Cardiff on Feb 13th 2025, engine failure A One Air Boeing 747-400 freighter, registration G-ONEE performing positioning flight HC-932P from Cardiff,WL (UK) to Zaragoza,SP (Spain), was climbing out of Cardiff's runway 12 when the crew stopped the climb at FL240 following an engine (PW4056) failure. The aircraft diverted to East Midlands,EN (UK) for a safe landing on runway 09 about 50 minutes after departure. The aircraft is still on the ground in East Midlands about 29 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=52417dcb&opt=0 Incident: Volaris A319 at Mexico City on Feb 13th 2025, runway excursion on landing A Volaris Airbus A319-100, registration XA-VOC performing flight Y4-3296 (dep Feb 12th) from Tijuana to Mexico City Felipe Angeles (Mexico), landed on Mexico City's runway 04L at 00:42L (06:42Z). While slowing through about 50 knots over ground the aircraft began to veer to the right and went beyond the runway edge coming to a stop with all gear on soft ground. There were no injuries. The aircraft is still on the ground in Mexico City about 35 hours after landing. https://avherald.com/h?article=52417ba6&opt=0 Incident: Emirates A388 at Dubai on Feb 6th 2025, engine damage observed by cabin crew An Emirates Airlines Airbus A380-800, registration A6-EOL performing flight EK-73 from Dubai (United Arab Emirates) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was climbing through about 1000 feet out of Dubai's runway 12R when loud noise was heard and a jolt was felt. The flight crew decided to continue the climb monitoring all aircraft parameters. Climbing through about 5000 feet one of the cabin crew informed the flight deck about damage visible to the cowling of the #1 engine (GP7270). The crew stopped the climb at 12000 feet and returned to Dubai for a safe landing on runway 12L about 105 minutes after departure. The aircraft remained on the ground until Feb 10th 2025 before returning to service. The United Arab Emirates' GCAA rated the occurrence an incident and opened an investigation, stating the aircraft received minor damage. https://avherald.com/h?article=524168c3&opt=0 14 February 2025 - Eagle Air Transport Inc Cessna 208A Cargomaster accident 1 dead Date: Friday 14 February 2025 Time: c. 18:40 LT Type: Cessna 208A Cargomaster Owner/operator: Eagle Air Transport Inc Registration: N40EA MSN: 20800065 Year of manufacture: 1985 Fatalities: Fatalities: 1 / Occupants: 1 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Destroyed Category: Accident Location: near Codys Corner, FL - United States of America Phase: En route Nature: Ferry/positioning Departure airport: Sebastian-Roseland Municipal Airport (X26) Destination airport: Palatka Municipal/Lt Kay Larkin Field Airport, FL (28J) Investigating agency: NTSB Confidence Rating: Information is only available from news, social media or unofficial sources Narrative: A Cessna 208A Cargomaster, N40EA, was destroyed when it crashed in a densely wooded area near Codys Corner, Florida. The pilot sustained fatal injuries. The aircraft had been operating for Skydive Sebastian since November 25, 2024, and was reportedly being repositioned to Palatka. https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/477900 Pushy passengers attacked by furious fellow traveler over rude inflight behavior: ‘Garbage people’ Travelers disembarking a no-frills airline got more than they bargained for when a deplaning dispute between passengers and a flight attendant spilled over into the terminal. The budget liner brouhaha began brewing onboard, when a young couple with two children began expressing their displeasure with the speed of their fellow flyers at the end of a Hong Kong Airlines flight from Bali to Hong Kong — hurling insults and calling them “garbage people”. A seemingly miserable mom and dad — who reportedly picked a fight with the entire plane for disembarking too slowly — received some swift sky justice when one fellow flyer decided to fight back. A seemingly miserable mom and dad — who reportedly picked a fight with the entire plane for disembarking too slowly — received some swift sky justice when one fellow flyer decided to fight back. The drama continued as the unhappy customers moved onto the jet bridge, deliberately bumping into people and fussing about everyone being too slow, What’s The Jam reported. They then escalated their argument to a crew member — which is when another passenger decided to get involved, attempting to dispense some swift sky justice to the miserable mom and dad. In a video shared online, the irritated intervener can be seen shouting at the contemptuous couple — before lashing out at them physically. The knight in shining armor tries to land a punch on the husband, who manages to dodge him, with the poorly-mannered pair then attempting to push the flight attendant out of the way so they can vacate the scene. At this point, other passengers now get involved, trying to break up the argument — with one trying to calm the instigating couple down. The video appeared online days ago — and was reportedly taken at some point within the last week. No further details were available — including whether or not law enforcement were called to intervene. Viewers of the crummy clip, which was widely circulated on Chinese social media and in traditional media outlets, were quick to express their unhappiness with the couple’s behavior. “Airlines should blacklist them in order to avoid any delay or return because of them in the future,” one wrote. “Now having a child seems to be a reason to lose your temper casually,” another mused. “The captain can ask them to get off the plane, flight safety is threatened,” someone else suggested. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/pushy-passengers-attacked-furious-fellow-004002559.html NTSB Reveals Altitude Discrepancies, Lost Communication With Helicopter Before Crash The Black Hawk helicopter may have been flying with “bad data” and didn’t hear all air traffic control instructions before colliding with a passenger plane, officials said. The National Transportation Safety Board offered new details Friday about the fatal collision between a U.S. Army Black Hawk and an American Airlines plane in Washington late last month, including the possibility that the helicopter crew was using “bad data” and didn’t hear all instructions from air traffic control. Both the military helicopter’s pilot and the pilot instructor inside the aircraft reported different altitudes in the minutes before the Jan. 29 collision, suggesting they were having an issue with their barometric altimeters, NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said at an afternoon press conference. “The pilot flying indicated they were at 300 feet. The instructor pilot indicated they were at 400,” she said of their communication roughly four minutes before the collision. “Neither pilot made a comment discussing an altitude discrepancy. At this point, we don’t know why there was a discrepancy between the two. That’s something that the investigative team is analyzing.” As the helicopter continued south toward Ronald Reagan National Airport, approaching the Francis Scott Key Bridge, the instructor pilot was recorded in the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) reporting that they were at an altitude of 300 feet, descending to 200 feet. A minute later, while passing over the Arlington Memorial Bridge, the instructor pilot told the pilot that they were still at 300 feet and needed to descend. The pilot flying said they would descend to 200 feet, Homendy said. Approximately two minutes before the collision, air traffic control was recorded telling the Black Hawk helicopter that the passenger plane was circling to land just south of them. But the portion of the transmission informing them of the plane “circling” “may not have been received by the Black Hawk crew,” Homendy said. “We hear the word ‘circling’ in ATC communications, but we do not hear the word ‘circling’ in the CVR of the Black Hawk.” This is being evaluated, she said. The helicopter’s crew responded to the tower by confirming that they had the air traffic ahead in sight. As both aircraft grew steadily closer, air traffic control again asked the Black Hawk helicopter if the passenger plane was in sight. The tower then immediately directed the helicopter to pass behind the oncoming plane in a message that the helicopter’s crew may not have fully received. “CVR data from the Black Hawk indicated that a portion of the transmission that stated ‘pass behind the [plane]’ may not have been received by the Black Hawk crew,” Homendy said. Instead, the radio feed between the tower and helicopter was interrupted or “stepped on” when the Black Hawk’s crew activated a microphone to confirm that the air traffic was in sight, Homendy said. At the time of impact, the passenger plane’s radio altitude was 313 feet. Radio altitude measures the height of an aircraft above a terrain, which in this case was the Potomac River, the NTSB said. This was recorded two seconds before the collision, Homendy said. In contrast, the radio altitude of the Black Hawk at the time of the collision was 278 feet, a height that had been steady for the previous five seconds, she said. “I want to caution that does not mean that that’s what the Black Hawk crew was seeing on the barometric altimeters in the cockpit. We are seeing conflicting information on the data, which is why we’re not releasing altitude for the Black Hawk’s entire route,” she said. There’s no indication that the helicopter crew was aware of the impending collision before it happened, she added. Only the on-scene portion of the NTSB’s investigation has wrapped up as of Friday, meaning a lot more work is needed before any conclusions can be made, Homendy said. “We are looking at the possibility [that] there may be bad data. We are looking at, were they seeing something different in the cockpit that differs from [Flight Data Recorder] data, which was radio altimeter,” she said. Homendy also addressed concerns about whether night vision goggles used by the helicopter’s pilots interfered with their vision. Go Ad-Free — And Protect The Free Press The next four years will change America forever. But HuffPost won't back down when it comes to providing free and impartial journalism. For the first time, we're offering an ad-free experience to qualifying contributors who support our fearless newsroom. We hope you'll join us. The helicopter was flying as part of a practical exam or so-called “check ride” in order for the pilot to be qualified for specific future duties. Part of the exam was a “night vision check ride,” meaning they were all likely wearing night vision goggles as part of the exam’s requirement, Homendy said. “Had they been removed, the crew was required to have a discussion about going unaided,” she said. “There is no evidence on the cockpit voice recorder or CVR of such a discussion.” A visibility study will be carried out to determine how the goggles may have impacted their vision, she said. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ntsb-altitude-black-hawk-helicopter-plane-crash_n_67afa202e4b0513a8d772cee Japan’s Peach airline warned after pilot on S’pore-Kansai flight breached pre-shift alcohol ban The flight captain was found to have drunk two cans of beer within the 12 hour-window before the start of his shift. Japan’s low-cost carrier Peach Aviation received a warning from the Civil Aviation Bureau after the captain of a Jan 7 flight from Singapore to Kansai drank two cans of beer despite a pre-shift alcohol ban, and skipped an alcohol test before operating the plane. The inappropriate behaviour of the pilot was revealed in a media statement by Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism on Feb 14. The flight captain was found to have drunk two cans of beer – about one litre in total – between 1.30pm and 2pm on Jan 6. This was within the 12-hour window before the start of his shift, during which the airline’s flight regulations prohibit crew members from consuming alcohol. Peach, an Osaka-headquartered airline under All Nippon Airways, flies an Airbus A321 daily from Changi Airport to Kansai International Airport at the scheduled time of 2.15am. While he was not under the influence of alcohol on Jan 7 – the day flight MM774 departed for Kansai – the captain and his co-pilot failed to take a pre-flight alcohol test. The person in charge also failed to check on the implementation of the tests, according to the ministry. The pilot was also found to have given false information when questioned by Peach. “We were concentrating on operating the aircraft at an unfamiliar airport and forgot to take the test,” he reportedly told his employer, adding that he thought he would not get caught. Yes, I would also like to receive SPH Media Group's SPH Media Limited, its related corporations and affiliates as well as their agents and authorised service providers. marketing and promotions. His violations were discovered when another person responsible for alcohol tests noticed that they had not been conducted on Jan 7, which led to Peach conducting fact-finding investigations. Japan’s Civil Aviation Bureau, an agency under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, issued a stern warning to Peach Aviation over the inappropriate behaviour of its flight crew, as well as inadequacies in its safety management system. It also ordered the airline to report by March 7 the measures it has taken to avoid a recurrence. Peach Aviation said it takes the incident seriously and will thoroughly analyse what happened. It will also work to regain trust by reinforcing safety awareness, including taking measures against alcohol drinking, and rebuild its alcohol-testing system. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/japans-peach-airline-warned-after-pilot-on-spore-kansai-flight-breached-pre-shift-alcohol-ban Delta Air Lines Sued After A350 Toilet Door Breaks Passenger Teeth The legal framework for Yanping's lawsuit against Delta Air Lines centers on Article 17 of the Montreal Convention. ATLANTA- A Delta Air Lines (DL) passenger’s recent lawsuit has highlighted a serious safety concern regarding airplane lavatory doors, transforming what was once considered a humorous topic among flight attendants into a significant legal matter. Yanping Wei from Shanghai, China, filed a federal lawsuit against Delta Air Lines after sustaining severe facial injuries from a bathroom door impact during a Shanghai (PVG)-Detroit (DTW) flight on December 22, 2023. A Delta Air Lines (DL) passenger's recent lawsuit has highlighted a serious safety concern regarding airplane lavatory doors, transforming what was once considered a humorous topic among flight attendants into a significant legal matter. The incident flagged by PYOK occurred when Wei approached the lavatory during the 13-hour flight, and the door allegedly swung open unexpectedly, causing dental damage, facial lacerations, and bruising. Modern commercial aircraft typically feature space-efficient bi-fold or concertina doors that fold inward, making such incidents physically impossible. However, airlines must maintain at least one conventional outward-opening bathroom door to accommodate passengers with disabilities. The Airbus A350-900, which Delta operates on the Shanghai-Detroit route, includes one such conventional door in its Economy section. These outward-opening doors can present safety risks, though rarely with the severity described in Wei’s case. Such incidents typically stem from two primary causes: previous passengers failing to secure the door properly or passengers exiting the lavatory with excessive force. The presence of these conventional doors, while necessary for accessibility compliance, introduces potential safety considerations that airlines must address. Lawsuit Under Montreal Convention The legal framework for Yanping’s lawsuit against Delta Air Lines centers on Article 17 of the Montreal Convention, an international law that establishes airline liability for passenger injuries during international flights. The Montreal Convention allows injured passengers to claim compensation up to 128,821 Special Drawing Rights, a monetary unit created by the International Monetary Fund, which translates to approximately $172,000. Courts retain the authority to award higher compensation amounts based on case specifics, as this threshold serves as a minimum rather than a maximum limit. Airlines face limited defense options under the Montreal Convention. Their primary defense strategy involves demonstrating that passenger negligence caused the injuries, absolving the airline of responsibility. Delta Air Lines has not yet submitted a response to Yanping’s lawsuit. The airline maintains another legal recourse: if an investigation reveals another passenger forcefully opened the door from inside, Delta could pursue legal action against that individual to recover costs associated with Yanping’s lawsuit. Similar Incident The legal precedent for airlines pursuing passengers over injury incidents exists, as demonstrated by Aer Lingus’s (EI) notable case. The Irish airline sued a passenger whose forceful removal of luggage caused a bottle to strike another passenger’s head. While the victim initially sued Aer Lingus under the Montreal Convention, the airline countered by pursuing legal action against the passenger deemed responsible. The situation concluded with Aer Lingus reaching an out-of-court settlement with the injured party. Aircraft manufacturers implement specific safety design features for conventional lavatory doors. These doors incorporate forward-hinging mechanisms to work with the aircraft’s natural flight position. The Airbus A350, like other large aircraft, maintains a nose-up attitude during cruising altitude, creating a natural resistance against door movement. This engineering design serves to prevent doors from swinging open with excessive force. https://aviationa2z.com/index.php/2025/02/17/delta-sued-after-toilet-door-breaks-passenger-teeth/ Jeju Air CEO undergoes police questioning over deadly airplane crash SEOUL, Feb. 17 (Yonhap) -- The chief of Jeju Air Co. has undergone police questioning over the deadly December crash of the company's passenger jet that claimed 179 lives, officials said Monday. The Jeonnam Provincial Police recently questioned CEO Kim E-bae as a witness over the crash at Muan International Airport in the southwestern county of Muan on Dec. 29. Of the total 181 people on board, only two survived. Police are said to have focused their questioning on the operations and safety management of the aircraft of the crash, with Kim reportedly saying there had been no issues regarding the safety, maintenance and operations of the jet. The police have called in various officials from the budget carrier, the airport, the transport ministry and relevant agencies to investigate the exact cause of the accident. They are currently focusing their investigation on the airport's localizer that the aircraft crashed into. The Boeing 737-800 jet from Bangkok erupted into flames after crashing into the structure that assists aircraft navigation as it overshot the runway when it made an emergency belly landing at the airport. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20250217008200315 Ryanair Ground Crew Fired After Failing Drug Test at Palma Airport, Raising Aviation Safety Concerns Aviation safety is once again under scrutiny after a Ryanair ground crew member at Palma de Mallorca Airport was dismissed for guiding aircraft while allegedly under the influence of drugs. The employee, responsible for directing planes to their designated gates and ensuring seamless ground operations, tested positive for cannabis in a random drug screening conducted by Spain’s Guardia Civil. While the worker showed no visible signs of intoxication, the failed test raises critical questions about the effectiveness of current drug screening measures at major international airports. Given the high-security clearance required for such roles, this revelation has alarmed both aviation authorities and passengers traveling through one of Europe’s busiest holiday hubs. Palma de Mallorca Airport: A Crucial European Aviation Hub Palma de Mallorca Airport (PMI) serves as the gateway to Spain’s Balearic Islands, handling millions of passengers annually. It is a vital operational center for budget carriers like Ryanair, ensuring seamless connectivity for tourists flocking to Mallorca’s sun-soaked beaches. With such an integral role in the travel industry, security measures at PMI must meet the highest international standards. However, this incident highlights a potential gap in routine safety checks for ground staff. While pilots and cabin crew undergo rigorous substance testing, the policies governing ramp agents and other essential ground personnel may require urgent revision. Stringent Drug Testing in Aviation: Is It Enough? International aviation protocols demand strict adherence to drug and alcohol regulations, particularly for personnel with direct access to aircraft. Employees in high-responsibility positions, such as air traffic controllers, pilots, and maintenance engineers, are routinely tested to prevent any risks to passenger safety. However, cases like this raise concerns about whether ground crews—who play a pivotal role in airport operations—face the same level of scrutiny. Despite Ryanair implementing its own stringent employee policies, the positive drug test in Palma suggests there may be inconsistencies in enforcement across different locations. The Role of Guardia Civil in Ensuring Airport Security The Guardia Civil, Spain’s law enforcement agency responsible for airport security, plays a critical role in monitoring personnel working in high-risk zones. Their random screenings aim to detect potential threats, from illicit substance use to unauthorized access. In this case, the drug screening was part of a routine security check rather than a targeted investigation. The fact that the Ryanair worker passed preliminary visual assessments but failed the drug test underscores the importance of biochemical screening over mere observational checks. Aviation Industry Response: Calls for Stronger Measures Following the incident, aviation authorities and industry professionals have emphasized the need for comprehensive drug screening policies across all employee levels. Experts argue that while pilots and flight attendants undergo strict checks, ground personnel—who manage aircraft movement and passenger safety—must also be held to the same standard. Key Industry Reactions: Spanish Aviation Authority (AESA): Advocates for more frequent, unannounced drug screenings at all major airports. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA): Reviewing existing policies to determine whether stricter enforcement is required for ground crew employees. Ryanair: While the airline dismissed the worker immediately, questions remain about its internal security measures and oversight of ground staff. Implications for Travelers and Airport Operations For millions of passengers transiting through Palma de Mallorca Airport annually, this revelation may raise concerns about overall airport security. Travelers rely on stringent regulatory enforcement to ensure their safety, and any lapse in these measures could erode trust in airline and airport operations. Potential outcomes from this incident: Increased airport security protocols: More frequent screenings for all personnel, not just pilots and cabin crew. Stronger penalties for violations: Stricter policies and immediate legal consequences for employees failing drug tests. Enhanced passenger confidence measures: Improved transparency regarding airline safety policies to reassure travelers. The Future of Drug Screening in the Aviation Industry With incidents like this bringing aviation security into the spotlight, the debate over mandatory drug testing for all airport personnel is gaining traction. Industry experts are urging global aviation authorities to revise outdated policies and implement more robust, real-time screening mechanisms. For Ryanair and Palma de Mallorca Airport, this case serves as a wake-up call, highlighting the need for heightened vigilance in one of Europe’s busiest air travel hubs. As the tourism industry continues to recover post-pandemic, ensuring absolute passenger safety must remain the top priority for airlines and airport authorities alike. https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/ryanair-ground-crew-fired-after-failing-drug-test-at-palma-airport-raising-aviation-safety-concerns/ Curt Lewis